The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should grant the application of the Petitioners, Charles Wenz and Janet Gallagher, for a family foster home license. 1/
Findings Of Fact Through series of circumstances, the Petitioners in this case--Charles Wenz and Janet Gallagher, husband and wife--came to know the children of a woman named N. M. 4/ Their priest told them about Nancy and her predicament. A serious drug and alcohol addict, and already the single mother of two boys (J. D., born December 30, 1977, and B. F., born January 7, 1983), each of whom had a different biological father, she was about to have another child by yet another man. The Petitioners were asked to help the family, and they agreed. Shortly after the third child--a girl, N. F., born November 4, 1988-- was released from the hospital, the mother asked the Petitioners to let the family live with them temporarily. Not long afterward, the mother slipped back to her way of abusing drugs and alcohol and left, leaving the children with the Petitioners. For some time, the Petitioners cared for the children without being licensed as a family foster home and without any financial assistance from HRS. Later, in approximately March, 1991, they became licensed as a family foster home for the specific and limited purpose of caring for the children of M. 5/ When it came to the children in their care, the Petitioners generally were very attentive to their needs for food, clothing, shelter and medical care, and they provided very well for the children, following up on all doctor appointments and the like. They were very conscientious in this regard. Generally, they got along well with the children, and the children tended to view them as if they were their real parents. As a result of their involvement with the family, the Petitioners came to know the children's maternal grandparents. While initially the Petitioners got along fairly well with the maternal grandparents, they had the opportunity to form opinions of them based on personal experience and stories related by the children and, later, by the fathers of the two boys. Essentially, the Petitioners thought the maternal grandparents were good grandparents, and they encouraged and cooperated in the maintenance of a relationship between the children and the maternal grandparents. At the same time, they did not perceive the maternal grandparents as a good option for permanent placement of the children. Besides the maternal grandparents' age and limited physical and emotional capabilities, and their lack of interest in being permanently responsible for the children on a full-time basis, the Petitioners also had a concern about what they understood to be the maternal grandfather's drinking habits. Instead, since reunification with the mother did not seem feasible to either the Petitioners or to HRS, the Petitioners felt the best option, at least for the boys, would be to investigate their reunification with their fathers. Along with HRS, the Petitioners were instrumental in locating the fathers of the boys and reestablishing contacts between them and their sons. Along with HRS, they actively encouraged and fostered the strengthening of the relationship between the boys and their fathers and worked with HRS to bring the men into a position to begin to care for their sons permanently on a full-time basis. When the Petitioners became licensed as a child-specific family foster home in approximately March, 1991, they agreed to work within the policies and procedures established by the Department and to accept supervision by a foster care counselor. There was no evidence that they were not supportive of the efforts outlined in the foster care agreement or plan. 6/ But problems between the Petitioners and the maternal grandparents developed between the time of the Petitioners' licensure and September, 1991. The problems got so bad that the HRS counselor assigned to the case had to conduct visitation in his office to ascertain who was causing the problems and how to best resolve them. The problems culminated in the maternal grandparents' ultimatum that they no longer could work with the Petitioners as foster parents and that they wanted the children placed with them, the grandparents. The problems worsened as HRS began to investigate the possibility of placing the children with the grandparents. 7/ The Petitioners were against this and attempted to use their positions as foster parents to thwart HRS efforts in that direction. A senior HRS counselor replaced the initial counselor in an effort to shepherd the grandparent placement, with its attendant visitations. But, although regular visitations by the grandparents was prearranged during the fall of 1991, 8/ the Petitioners consistently raised various obstacles to the grandparent visitations, requiring multiple interventions by the HRS senior counselor and others at HRS. Three times, despite HRS interventions, visitation had to be cancelled. The Petitioners' case was taking such an inordinate amount of time that the HRS senior counselor went to his supervisor for relief. The grandparents felt the need to go to court to have the court establish visitation over the Christmas holidays. A hearing had to be held on or about December 10, 1991, and the court granted the grandparents overnight visitation from December 25 through 30, 1991. On inquiring of the children on their return, the Petitioners believed the grandparents did not properly administer prescribed medications for two of the children and accused the grandparents of child abuse. HRS investigated and found that the grandparents had been in direct telephone communication with two of the children's doctors to resolve a discrepancy between two of their medication prescriptions and had followed the telephone instructions of the doctor in charge of the prescription. In connection with the problems with the grandparents, the Petitioners exhibited a clear tendency to try to manipulate the foster care system to their advantage, even unintentionally to the detriment of the interests of the children, and sometimes, out of overzealousness, through use of untruths and half truths. On one occasion, in an attempt to persuade the first HRS counselor not to pursue placement of the children with the grandparents, they told the counselor that an HRS protective services worker had told them that the maternal grandfather had a drinking problem. In fact, it was the Petitioners who had alleged to the protective services worker that the maternal grandfather had a drinking problem. On another occasion, to avoid allowing the grandparents to pick up the children for visitation, the Petitioners cited a supposed statute or rule making it illegal for the grandparents to provide transportation for the children. 9/ Once the boy, B. F., lost a hospital pass for use to visit his grandparents because of problems raised by the Petitioners concerning the legality of the grandparents providing transportation for him. In addition to the problems with the maternal grandparents, the Petitioners exhibited a certain tendency to take things into their own hands when closer contact and consultation with HRS would have been advisable. Once they made arrangements for one of the boys to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital without consulting with HRS and did not advise the counselor until shortly before admission. To attempt to justify their actions to the HRS counselor, the Petitioner told the counselor that the boy's family therapist strongly favored hospitalization for psychiatric treatment. In fact, the counselor later found that the family therapist only had said that it might become necessary at some point to hospitalize the boy. Once the Petitioner, Charles Wenz, used corporal punishment on one of the boys although he knew it was against HRS policy for operators of a family foster home to use corporal punishment. He explained that, due to the history of the Petitioners' relationship with these children, the Petitioners felt more like parents than foster parents and that he did not think it was appropriate in their case for the usual prohibition against corporal punishment to apply to them. Later, Mr. Wenz had another occasion to use a form of corporal punishment on the other boy. 10/ In January, 1992, the Petitioners applied to renew their "child- specific" license as a family foster home. On or about February 1, 1992, the court placed the children with the maternal grandparents, and the Petitioners converted their application to one for general licensure as a family foster home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), enter a final order granting the application of Charles Wenz and Janet Gallagher for general licensure as a family foster home. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 13th day of July, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent's foster home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Azulphar had a foster home license issued by the Department. Ms. Azulphar became a foster parent in January 1999. As with all new foster parents, Ms. Azulphar was required to complete 30 hours of Model Approach to Partnership Parenting (MAPP) training. Among other things, the MAPP training involves discussions regarding duties and responsibilities of a foster parent, the sexual problems of foster care children, and what to do if a foster care child runs away. Ms. Azulphar and the Department entered into a Bilateral Service Agreement regarding foster care. Both of them agreed to abide by the terms of the Bilateral Service Agreement. The Bilateral Service Agreement provided, among other things, the following: The Department's responsibilities to the foster parents include: * * * j. Support will be shown by responding within 24 hours to telephone messages, written correspondence or any other requests the foster parents may have. * * * Commitment to the Child The decision to accept a child into the home is a major one. . . Most foster children have experienced severe emotional, sexual and/or physical abuse as well as trauma. It is not unusual for children who have been sexually abused to act out in sexual inappropriate ways. Foster parents must be aware that these children need extra monitoring, teaching and showing of appropriate affection in order to grow into healthy children. . . By accepting a child into the home, the foster parent(s) agree to the following responsibilities: * * * d. To ensure that the child has supervision appropriate to his/her age and developmental level. * * * Foster parents have responsibilities and duties to both the department [sic] and the child. Responsibilities to the department [sic] include: * * * k. To notify the Department immediately if a child runs away, is missing or does not return home, even if the foster parent knows where the child is. * * * s. To know where and with whom the child is staying and the type of supervision the child is receiving when foster parents approve an outing or overnight activity. . . Non-compliance with any of the above provisions can result in termination of this service agreement by either the foster parents or the Department. Non-compliance with any of the above [sic] provisions may also result in the department [sic] revoking the home's license to provide foster care pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. . . . Any person living with a foster parent is subject to a background check by the Department because such person would have contact with any foster child placed with the foster parent. Such person must not have a disqualifying criminal record1 in order for the person to remain in the foster home during the licensure of the foster home. Ms. Azulphar had a tenant, Louis Bryant, who lived in an attached room to her home, which was converted from a garage. He had his own private entrance to his room. In January 2002, the Department informed Ms. Azulphar that Mr. Bryant, not only had a criminal record, but also had a disqualifying criminal drug record and that, therefore, if she wanted to keep her license, he would have to move. Ms. Azulphar informed Mr. Bryant that he had to move. Mr. Bryant moved, and Ms. Azulphar provided documentation to the Department indicating that he had moved. Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as a long-time friend and someone that she had relied upon when she first came to the United States. Mr. Bryant was also Ms. Azulphar's former supervisor. Further, even though he was a drug addict, who was skinny and dirty, smelled bad, and needed reminding to bathe, Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as the only person upon whom she could call when she had an emergency. She also indicated that Mr. Bryant was a handy man who performed repairs for her. Ms. Azulphar admitted that, as to Mr. Bryant, she was a "co-partner." She further admitted that Mr. Bryant was someone she "needs to continue what she was doing." In spite of her reliance upon Mr. Bryant as indicated, Ms. Azulphar showed a willingness to comply with the Department's requirements by requiring Mr. Bryant to move. On or about May 8, 2002, a foster child, F.D.,2 was placed with Ms. Azulphar. F.D. was 12 years of age at the time. F.D. was a special needs foster child because she had a history of being sexually abused at an early age and because F.D.'s father was deceased and her mother had voluntarily surrendered her parental rights. F.D. was the subject of disciplinary action at school. She was suspended for ten days from school for pulling a knife on another student. During the suspension, Ms. Azulphar took F.D. to work with her. F.D. left Ms. Azulphar's workplace without Ms. Azulphar's permission and knowledge. F.D. called her friends who came to Ms. Azulphar's workplace and F.D. left with them. Ms. Azulphar discovered that F.D. was dating a young man who was much older than F.D. Ms. Azulphar believed that the young man was approximately 26 years of age because he "looked" 26 years of age and F.D.'s friends were dating young men who also looked 26 years of age. Ms. Azulphar believed that the young man was among the friends that F.D. contacted to leave Ms. Azulphar's workplace. Also, during F.D.'s suspension, on the afternoon of May 16, 2002, her Guardian Ad-Litem came to Ms. Azulphar's home to visit F.D. The Guardian Ad-Litem knocked but no one answered. F.D. emerged from a neighbor's house. Ms. Azulphar had left F.D. alone at home. Ms. Azulphar had instructed F.D. to wait for the Guardian Ad-Litem at home and to not go outside of the home. Ms. Azulphar talked with the Guardian Ad-Litem on the telephone that same day. She expressed to the Guardian Ad-Litem that she wanted F.D. out of her home. That evening on May 16, 2002, F.D. became so distraught and volatile that she took a knife and threatened to harm herself. Ms. Azulphar called the Department's emergency telephone number and was told to call the Crisis Center for Mobile Children (CCMC). Ms. Azulphar telephoned CCMC, which told her how to talk to F.D. Ms. Azulphar did as she was instructed and F.D. did not harm herself. The next day, May 17, 2002, sometime in the evening after bedtime, which was around 9 p.m., F.D. slipped out of Ms. Azulphar's home. Ms. Azulphar had taken a sleeping pill and was not aware that F.D. was gone. Around 4 a.m. on May 18, 2002, Ms. Azulphar received a telephone call from F.D., who wanted Ms. Azulphar to come and get her. Ms. Azulphar did not want to drive at that time because she had taken the sleeping pill, so Ms. Azulphar asked F.D. to have an adult come to the telephone. Ms. Azulphar believed that F.D. was at a party because of the background noise that she heard, which sounded like a party. Ms. Azulphar recognized that the person who came to the telephone was not an adult, but Ms. Azulphar requested that F.D. be permitted to stay at the person's home until 6 a.m. when she (Ms. Azulphar) would pick-up F.D. F.D. did not wait for Ms. Azulphar. She returned to Ms. Azulphar's home before Ms. Azulphar could get her. Ms. Azulphar did not call the police when she discovered that F.D. was leaving her (Ms. Azulphar's) workplace with the young man who was 26 years of age and when she received the telephone call from F.D. The reason that Ms. Azulplhar did not call the police is that she believed that the police would do more harm than good to F.D., that F.D. had had enough trouble, and that F.D. was a Haitian as she was. After F.D. returned to Ms. Azulphar's home on May 18, 2002, Ms. Azulphar contacted the Guardian Ad-Litem and requested the removal of F.D. from her home. The Guardian Ad-Litem reported the incident to the court and the court ordered an investigation and the removal of F.D. from Ms. Azulphar's home. The Guardian Ad-Litem did not know the results of the court's investigation. During the time that F.D. was in Ms. Azulphar's home, Ms. Azulphar also had, in addition to her own child, T.A., two other foster children, A.A. and her sister, V.A.3 All of the other children agree that F.D. could not be trusted, was a thief, and did not tell the truth. After F.D. was removed from her home, Ms. Azulphar had another foster child placed in her home, who ran away. However, this time, Ms. Azulphar contacted the police and the Department when she discovered that the child had run away. Sometime during the first two weeks that F.D. was placed with Ms. Azulphar,4 the Department's social worker for F.D., Luis Muriel, was making arrangements with Ms. Azulphar to pick-up F.D. Ms. Azulphar requested Mr. Muriel to come to her workplace since F.D. would be there with her; however, he wanted Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone. Ms. Azulphar reminded him that she was not to leave F.D. at home alone. However, Mr. Muriel instructed Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone and informed Ms. Azulphar that he would be arriving at her home in 30 minutes. Ms. Azulphar contacted a male friend, who was approximately 50 years of age, for assistance and requested that he wait at her home for Mr. Muriel, who would be arriving in 30 minutes. However, she instructed her friend to wait outside in his car, not in her home, and he agreed to do so. When Mr. Muriel arrived at Ms. Azulphar's home and knocked on the door, Ms. Azulphar's friend opened the door. Ms. Azulphar's friend had not complied with her instructions and had gone into her home while F.D. was in the home. The Department had not performed a background check on Ms. Azulphar's friend. There was no reason for the Department to perform a background check on Ms. Azulphar's friend since it was never intended by Ms. Azulphar that he would have contact with the foster children placed with her. As to the incident, Ms. Azulphar had made it clear to her friend that he was not to go inside the home. On May 29, 2002, around 8 p.m., the licensing counselor for Ms. Azulphar's case, Reynaldo Gonzalez, made an unannounced visit to her home after being contacted by F.D.'s Guardian Ad-Litem regarding F.D.'s situation. By that time, F.D. had been removed from Ms. Azulphar's home. Mr. Gonzalez noticed a car parked outside of the house. He knocked on the door. The foster child A.A., who was approximately 15 years of age at the time, looked through the window and informed Mr. Gonzalez that Ms. Azulphar was not at home. Mr. Gonzalez returned around 8:30 p.m. and A.A. was still at home alone. Ms. Azulphar had left A.A. at home alone. However, Mr. Gonzalez's primary concern was not A.A.'s being at home alone. On the following day, around 6:20,5 Mr. Gonzalez returned to Ms. Azulphar's home because the Department had received anonymous information that no food was in the home. The same car was parked outside Ms. Azulphar's home, but the front of the car was parked in a different direction. Ms. Azulphar was not at home, but a relative, who was there, permitted Mr. Gonzalez to enter. Mr. Gonzalez found that there was adequate food in the home. None of the foster children were at home; they were with Ms. Azulphar. Mr. Gonzalez's testimony failed to indicate whether the car was parked along the street or in the driveway. An inference is drawn that the car was parked along the street. Ms. Azulphar voluntarily admitted to Mr. Gonzalez that Mr. Bryant was the owner of the car. She wanted Mr. Bryant to park his car outside her home to make it look as if someone were at home because her home had been burglarized when no one was at home. Further, on one of the days referred to, Mr. Bryant's car was either in disrepair or out of gas.6 According to the Department, Mr. Bryant should not have parked his car in front of Ms. Azulphar's home on the street. However, the evidence fails to demonstrate that such conduct by Mr. Bryant involved contact with the foster children. Ms. Azulphar admits that, at times, Mr. Bryant accompanied her shopping even when the foster children were with her. Ms. Azulphar also admits that Mr. Bryant has cut her grass, but only when she was at home. Ms. Azulphar testified that she obtained the approval of the Department for cutting the grass even though no Department witness recalled approving the action. Ms. Azulphar's testimony is found to be credible. Ms. Azulphar used poor judgment as it relates to Mr. Bryant. At first, Ms. Azulphar believed that, even though Mr. Bryant could not continue to be a tenant, she could continue to have Mr. Bryant to assist her with some things. She now knows that, as long as she has foster children, the Department does not want him to be around the children at any time. Ms. Azulphar believed that nothing was wrong with Mr. Bryant parking or leaving his car at her house. Now, she knows that the Department does not want him to be near her home when she has foster children. A.A. and V.A. were removed from Ms. Azulphar's home when the Department decided to revoke her foster home license. Both A.A. and V.A. want to return to Ms. Azulphar's home. Ms. Azulphar's daughter is in complete agreement with her mother being a foster parent and wants A.A. and V.A. to return.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing the revocation action of the foster home license of Marie Claire Azulphar. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2003.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate a day care center should be suspended or revoked. Whether Petitioner's license to operate a day care center should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: The Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities. Respondent routinely conducts inspections of licensed child care facilities to determine whether facilities are in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report, which is provided to the facility's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on child care facilities which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Respondent also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect child care facilities at any time with or without notice. Petitioner is the owner and operator of a licensed child care facility located at 2625 North Hiawasee Road, Orlando, Florida, which is operated under the business name: Today's Kids Daycare Center (hereinafter "Petitioner's facility" or "the facility"). Petitioner has operated the child care facility at the above address for approximately five years and previously worked as director of another child care facility for five years. Petitioner has taken all required training in order to be licensed. As a result, she is, or should be, familiar with the rules regulating child care facilities. The Incident Following a complaint, Susan Wujastyk, former child protective investigator for Respondent, interviewed the mother of the child, W.P., at the child's school on March 5, 2004, in relation to an alleged incident which occurred at Petitioner's facility on March 3, 2004. She then prepared a preliminary report and went to Petitioner's facility to investigate further. Respondent's child care licensing division was also notified and an inspector came to the facility, as well. On or about March 3, 2004, the child, W.P., a pre- kindergarten student at Petitioner's facility, swallowed an unknown solid substance while in Tangela Muskin's classroom. Muskin believed the substance to be rat pellets and lead W.P. to Petitioner, who was in another room, and told her of her suspicions. Petitioner, who had taken some nursing courses at the local community college, put on a rubber glove and swabbed the child's mouth to dislodge any other substances that might still be in the child's mouth. She also gave him some milk, with the intent to make him throw up. Petitioner then inspected the vomit but found no foreign substances in it. Petitioner did not call "9-1-1" for emergency assistance, nor did she call the poison control center. Instead, she observed W.P. for a period of time and sent him back to his classroom. Muskin also testified that she found the child, W.P., with a bag labeled rat pellets and claimed that Petitioner, in the presence of another employee at the facility, threw the rat pellets in the trash and told Muskin and the other employee not to report this to anyone. This statement is not credible. Petitioner testified that she attempted to call the child's mother, but could not reach her by telephone. Thereafter, she waited for the child's father to come and pick him up and she told him that W.P. had swallowed something but that Petitioner believed that she got all of the material out of his mouth. She advised him to take the child to the emergency room, but the father declined to do so. This statement appears to be credible. Susan Wujastyk inspected the facility on March 5, 2004, as part of her investigation of this matter and found two pellets under a toy chest in Muskin's classroom. Wujastyk thought they were rat pellets; however, that fact was never verified. An examination of the child, W.P., on March 5, 2004, found no evidence of ingestion of a toxic substance, and his condition was found to be stable. Petitioner retains a pest control company that performs regular services at the facility, but does not use rat pellets or any form of rodent control devices. Three of Petitioner's employees testified that they perform regular inspections of the facility and none of them ever found rat pellets or other toxic substances on the premises. Following the joint investigation, a joint report was prepared and approved by Respondent's staff, and it was recommended that Petitioner's license be revoked. Thereafter, on March 23, 2004, the acting district director sent a letter to Petitioner informing her that her license was being revoked and advised Petitioner of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process. Subsequently, on June 10, 2004, Petitioner was sent a letter informing her that her license would not be renewed. The basis for the denial was the same as the revocation letter. At the hearing, Patricia Richard testified that she was particularly concerned that Petitioner was aware the W.P. may have swallowed a toxic and other dangerous substance and did not take immediate action to report it to "9-1-1" or the poison control center; and did not take it upon herself to take the child to a health care professional for examination but waited for the parents to arrive to inform them of the incident. Richard also testified that it was improper for Petitioner to put her fingers down the child's throat in order to induce vomiting. She characterized these as serious child safety violations and failure to follow proper emergency procedures. These were the primary reasons she recommended that Petitioner's child care license be revoked and not renewed. Petitioner, in her testimony, did not deny giving the child milk and swabbing his mouth with her finger, but did deny that she stuck her fingers in his mouth in order to induce vomiting. The evidence is not clear and convincing that the child, W.P., swallowed a toxic or hazardous material; and it is not at all clear from the evidence what it was that the child swallowed. However, it is clear that the child swallowed something that was suspected to be toxic; and when this fact was reported to Petitioner, she did not follow proper emergency procedures and did not properly notify the child's parents promptly. Petitioner has demonstrated that her license for a child care facility should not be denied or revoked but that a lesser penalty should be imposed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.004(2)(d)1. and 2. (one count each). Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(b) or similar provisions. Imposing a fine of $200, and a one-month suspension of Petitioner's license, followed by the issuance of a provisional license. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 5th day of October, 2004.
The Issue Did Respondent, Department of Children and Families (Department), correctly deny the application of Petitioner, Laura's Learning and Enrichment Center (Laura's Learning), for licensure renewal for failure to meet the minimum licensing standards for child care facilities?
Findings Of Fact The Legislature has charged the Department with regulating and licensing child care facilities. Laura Smith owns and operates Laura's Learning in Lake Wales, Florida. Since 2009, the Department has licensed Laura's Learning as a child care facility. The charges involved in this proceeding are the first time that the Department has acted against Laura's Learning's license. Ms. Smith submitted an amended application to renew her license on November 21, 2019. The Department proposes to deny renewal of the license because Ms. Smith failed, the Department asserts, to protect her adopted son, B.S., from bizarre punishment and resulting physical and emotional harm. It also alleges that Ms. Smith failed to provide a required update to her renewal application. In its case number 2019-197752-01, the Department made a verified finding of abuse by Ms. Smith of B.S., her adopted son, by failing to protect him from bizarre punishment and physical injury. Because of this, the Department revoked Ms. Smith's license to operate a family foster home. However, Ms. Smith did not oppose revocation and wished to surrender her license. Ms. Smith did not amend her application to advise the Department that it had revoked her foster home license. Ms. Nancy Ebrahimi learned of the verified finding and license revocation during her routine review of Department registries during the license renewal process. August 7, 2019, after a shelter hearing in which Ms. Smith said that she did not want B.S. in her home any longer, the court ordered that B.S. be placed in the shelter custody of the Department. An August 8, 2019, Shelter Order at Review continued this placement. On September 18, 2019, the court granted the Department's Petition for Termination of Parental Rights of B.S. This decision included consideration of the fact that Ms. Smith signed an Affidavit and Acknowledgment of Surrender, Consent to Termination of Parental Rights, and Waiver of Notice form before the Department filed its Termination of Parental Rights Petition. Ms. Smith's relationship with B.S. began when she served as his foster parent. She adopted him when he was about seven (born March 11, 2005). B.S. lived in Ms. Smith's home in Lake Wales, Florida. He occasionally helped with chores, such as yardwork, at Laura's Learning. He was also responsible for chores at home. Ms. Smith had other children, including an adult biological daughter, Jayda Miles, who, at the times involved here, lived in Cocoa Beach, Florida, and visited Ms. Smith's home regularly, often with her husband, Antonio Miles. Mr. and Ms. Miles lived on Patrick Air Force Base because of his service in the Air Force. Another adult sibling, Chaundi Parham, lived at Ms. Smith's home and worked sometimes at Laura's Learning. Young twins who were Ms. Smith's foster children lived in the home with a third foster child. On June 17, 2019, B.S. was doing yardwork at Laura's Learning. Ms. Parham was overseeing him. B.S. could not complete mowing because the mower was flooding. Ms. Parham directed him to sit on a bench and wait for Ms. Smith to arrive. B.S. removed a bag of Cheetos from the back pack of the twins, who were also at Laura's Learning. Ms. Parham caught him eating the Cheetos in the bathroom. She scolded him and called Ms. Smith. Ms. Parham was unable to reach Ms. Smith, so she called her older sister, Ms. Miles. Ms. Parham then told B.S. to sit on a bench to await Ms. Smith. B.S. jumped the fence surrounding the child care center and ran away. B.S. was 14 years old at the time. Ms. Parham reported B.S. as a runaway. During the preceding year, B.S. had started regularly having trouble at school. He frequently got in fights. Lake Wales police officer, Edgar Claros, responded to the report of B.S. running away. On June 18, 2019, Ms. Smith reported to the police that B.S. had returned home. She also reported that he said he wanted to live on the streets and left home again. B.S. had run away two or three times before. The Department assigned Ms. McConnell-Bailey to investigate. On June 18, 2021, Ms. McConnell-Bailey visited Ms. Smith to question her about the runaway report. She also questioned Ms. Smith about reports from an unidentified source, possibly a caller to the Department's abuse line, about maltreatment of B.S. including use of a "taser1", striking him with various 1 "Taser" is a brand name for a stun gun and likely not the brand involved here. The device was a stun gun that required contact of its electrode prongs with the subject's skin, called "drive tasing." There is no evidence that any of the tasing involved darts. "Taser" and "tase" are used in this Order because that is the description the witnesses used. objects including a wooden spoon, and making him sleep in the garage and laundry room. Ms. Smith was visibly angry. She denied the allegations and said B.S. was not going to ruin her business and take everything she had worked so hard for. She said B.S. was lying and that she had no idea where he was, except that some people told her he was somewhere in the neighborhood of a Publix. Ms. Smith did not express concern for B.S.'s well-being. She did tell Ms. McConnell-Bailey that she had removed all pictures of B.S. from displays of family photographs because they upset her. Ms. Smith began crying during the interview. She said the situation upset her and was causing her to get sick. She said she felt she was too old for the troubles B.S. caused and she did not want to deal with him anymore. On June 21, 2019, Ms. Smith called Detective James Lewis and advised him she had heard that B.S. was near the area of G. Street and Lincoln Avenue. Ms. Smith told Detective Lewis that she hoped the officers did not find B.S. and that he keeps running. Ms. Smith also said B.S. had been lying about her family, specifically her daughter, Jayda, falsely claiming abuse. And she said she wanted to file for an injunction against him. Ms. Smith did not express or display any concern for B.S. Ms. Smith, however, told Detective Lewis that she was going to the area where B.S. might be, but that he would run from her. Detective Lewis passed the information about B.S.'s location on to Officer Eric Ricks, who located B.S. in the area. Officer Ricks located B.S., picked him up, and spoke with him. Officer Ricks asked B.S. why he ran away and did not want to return home. B.S. told Officer Ricks that his sister, Ms. Miles, tased him and pepper sprayed him on June 16 in the presence of Ms. Smith, Mr. Miles, and Ms. Parham. B.S. indicated that it was because he had tried to steal something to eat. B.S. was apprehensive about returning to Ms. Smith's home. B.S. appeared to be on the verge of tears. B.S. did not say anything about being tased earlier in the year, around Memorial Day, on the patio. Officer Ricks transported B.S. to the police station where Detective Lewis assumed responsibility for the investigation. Detective Lewis interviewed B.S. with Child Protective Investigator Ruth McConnell-Bailey, for forty-five minutes to an hour, the night of June 21, 2019. B.S. told Detective Lewis that Ms. Miles had repeatedly tased him on his left chest area and on his upper left arm and sprayed him with pepper spray on June 16, 2019. He said this was because he had been caught preparing to steal a honeybun. This, he said, was the reason he ran away and did not want to return. B.S. did not say anything about being tased earlier in the year, around Memorial Day, on the patio. Detective Lewis inspected B.S.'s chest and left arm. He found injuries and scabs that he thought were consistent with the injuries made by a taser. The pain from tasing that B.S. described was consistent with the pain Detective Lewis experienced when he was tased during training. Detective Lewis did not measure the distance between scabs or other injuries to determine if they corresponded with the typical separation of the prongs of a taser. B.S. also told Detective Lewis that he was wearing snowman pajamas the night of June 16. After the interview, Detective Lewis and Ms. McConnell-Bailey transported B.S. to the home of Cheryl Jennings who had agreed to provide him lodging. B.S. was happy to be taken there instead of Ms. Smith's home. B.S. said that he felt unsafe at Ms. Smith's home. Detective Lewis and Ms. McConnell-Bailey then went to Ms. Smith's home to obtain clothes for B.S. and to obtain the snowman pajamas. The pajamas had been washed, dried, and folded. Detective Lewis examined the pajamas. He identified one small burn hole on the chest area of the pajamas. He thought the hole was consistent with use of a taser with its prongs placed directly on the person being tased. Although B.S. claimed he had been repeatedly tased on his left chest and left arm, the pajamas had only one possible burn hole. A few days later, Detective Lewis interviewed Ms. Miles. She denied the claims of B.S. She also allowed Detective Lewis to search her car. He did not find a taser or pepper spray. On June 25, 2019, Thia Lomax, Children's Home Society Children's Advocacy Center Case Coordinator, Child Protection Team, interviewed B.S. Ms. Lomax is a trained and experienced forensic interviewer. Ms. Lomax noticed marks on B.S.'s neck. He told her they were from a recent fight. Ms. Lomax interviewed B.S. for about an hour. The record contains a video recording of the interview. The interview is neutral and undirected. Ms. Lomax does not suggest or imply responses by her questions or body language. However, Ms. Lomax also does not test or challenge B.S.'s statements. B.S. basically made the same report about events the night of June 16 as he made earlier to Detective Lewis. He also made a new claim that Ms. Miles tased him on the patio earlier in the year, around Memorial Day, in the presence of Ms. Smith and Ms. Parham. His description did not identify a number of tasings or how long the experience lasted. B.S. also made claims about being struck by a broom and a spoon and made to "work like a slave." On August 6, 2020, the parties deposed B.S. A transcript of the deposition is also part of the record. B.S. did not testify at the hearing. B.S.'s deposition testimony differed from the interviews. B.S. demonstrated confusion and changed the details of his reports. The evidence about the initial events of the night of Sunday, June 16, 2019, is consistent. Mr. and Ms. Miles were spending that night at Ms. Smith's home. On June 16 Ms. Smith took B.S. to Walmart sometime after midnight to buy a Sprite. Antonio Miles was at the Walmart, having arrived separately. He observed B.S. preparing to steal a honey bun. When B.S. saw Mr. Miles watching him, he abandoned his plan to steal a honey bun. Afterwards B.S. returned home with Ms. Smith and went to bed, wearing pajamas with snowmen on them. When Mr. Miles returned to the home, he told Ms. Smith about the honey bun. Ms. Smith called B.S. into the family room. From this point forward, the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses differs significantly. According to Ms. Smith, Ms. Miles, and Mr. Miles, Ms. Smith called B.S. into the family room and asked him about the honey bun incident. He told her he was just looking at the pastry. They further testified that Ms. Smith talked to B.S. about "making bad choices" and sent him back to bed. Ms. Smith, Ms. Miles, Ms. Parham, and Mr. Miles all testified that Ms. Parham was not present because she was with friends in Orlando. Mr. Miles, Ms. Miles, and Ms. Smith are adamant that Ms. Miles did not tase or pepper spray B.S. They also agree that Ms. Parham was not present during the conversation with B.S. about the honey bun because she was in Orlando. And they agree he was not made to sleep in the laundry room. According to B.S., when Ms. Smith called him from his room, all the adults, including Ms. Parham, were present in the family room. He says that when he denied preparing to steal the honey bun, Ms. Smith stated, "No you are lying." In his interviews, B.S. stated that Ms. Miles went to her car and returned with a pink can of pepper spray and a pink "taser" and began tasing him. He said that Ms. Miles tased him five or six times on his upper left arm and the left side of his chest. The taser got tangled in his pajamas he said. Then Ms. Miles began spraying him with pepper spray. According to B.S.'s statements, the adults sent him outside to wash the pepper spray from his face. He then went to bed in the laundry room. He said that Ms. Smith did not intervene. In deposition, subject to cross examination, B.S. amplified and expanded his claims to the point of incredulity. For instance, in his interviews he said Ms. Miles had tased him five or six times the night of June 16. In his deposition testimony, B.S. testified "they were tasing me all over the house." (R. Ex. K, p. 52). He also testified that the tasing went on for two or three hours. He volunteered that Ms. Miles tased him 50 times. He also said that it could have been 100 times. He said his pajamas had 50, maybe 100 holes from the tasing. (R. Ex. K, p. 52). These claims differ significantly from those made in his interviews. Detective Lewis found only one hole that he thought could have been caused by a taser. According to B.S., Ms. Smith did not attempt to intervene to stop Ms. Miles. She also did not report the alleged incident to law enforcement. Ms. Miles, Mr. Miles, and Ms. Smith all firmly denied the allegations of tasing and pepper spraying the night of June 16. During the videotaped interview, B.S. first claimed that Ms. Miles tased him three or four times when on the patio Memorial Day. He did not mention this in his earlier interviews. His deposition testimony about tasing on the patio was very different from his interview statements. He testified that Ms. Miles tased his entire chest and stomach up to his neck Memorial Day. He said Ms. Smith was on the patio and Ms. Parham was sitting on a couch inside looking out. At first, he said Ms. Miles tased him 20 times. He went on to say it was more than 20, maybe 50 or 100 times. He said the Memorial Day tasing lasted from about 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. He also testified that Ms. Smith and Ms. Miles stayed on the patio the entire time. Ms. Parham, he said, stayed sitting on the couch watching the entire time. Nobody took a break, went to the restroom, or got something to drink, according to B.S.'s testimony. Ms. Miles, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Parham all credibly deny this account. In addition, the claims are implausible because of the varying numbers of tasings claimed and the length of time B.S. said the tasings went on, as well as nobody leaving the patio for five hours. In the course of the interviews and his deposition, B.S. made claims of being hit by a broom, hit by a spoon, made to sleep in the garage, and made to sleep in the laundry room. Ms. Smith denied these allegations. They are not corroborated. The evidence to support these claims is not clear and convincing. B.S.'s shifting version of events, the firm, convincing denials of all other witnesses, and the inconsistency of only one burn on the pajamas from four to six tasings, let alone 50 to 100, keep the evidence of the tasing and pepper spraying from being clear and convincing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Children and Families, enter a Final Order granting the license renewal application of Petitioner, Laura's Learning and Enrichment Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Hannah George, Esquire Law Firm of Gil Colon, Jr. 325 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Raquel Ramos, Esquire Department of Children and Families 1055 U.S. Highway 17 North Bartow, Florida 33830 Javier A. Enriquez, Esquire Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should deny Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster home care for dependent children pursuant to Section 409.175, Florida Statutes (1999). (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating foster care in the state. Petitioners were foster care parents until October 5, 2000, when Petitioners voluntarily surrendered their foster care license for medical reasons. Prior to October 5, 2000, Mrs. Williams suffered from high blood pressure and dizziness. She was physically unable to care for foster children and asked that Respondent remove all foster children from her home. Before her medical problems began, Mrs. Williams complained to Respondent that she could not provide foster care for children with behavior problems. Mrs. Williams asked Respondent to remove certain children from her home because they presented behavioral problems with which she could not cope. In March of 2001, Petitioners applied for a new license to provide foster care. Petitioners did not provide any medical evidence, during the hearing or the application process, that Mrs. Williams has recovered from her medical problems. Her medical problems have a long medical history and come and go each year. Mrs. Williams is 62 years old. On the family profile sheet filed with Respondent, Mrs. Williams lists her occupation as "disabled."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster care to dependent children. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 31st day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Wilbert and Estella Williams 412 Pine Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services, District 7 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's foster home license should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a foster home license issued by Respondent. Petitioner was recruited to be a foster parent by Florida Baptist Children's Home (FBCH). FBCH is a recruiter of foster parents for Respondent and holds a contract with Respondent to that effect. FBCH performs extensive background checks on and interviews persons who have been identified as potential foster parents. Subsequently, all paperwork on homes recommended by FBCH for licensure as foster homes is submitted to Respondent. Respondent makes the determination as to whether to issue a license. Respondent has licensed all foster homes recommended by FBCH. FBCH recommended to Respondent that Petitioner be licensed. Respondent and FBCH have an agreement, referred to as a placement performance agreement, regarding the foster parents who have been recruited by FBCH and licensed by Respondent. The agreement requires, among other things, the presence of FBCH at any time Respondent wishes to do anything in connection with the home of a foster parent recommended by FBCH. One of the requirements of a foster parent is to receive 30 hours of training on, among other things, how to be a foster parent, how to take care of foster children, and the duties and responsibilities of a foster parent. As part of the training, discussions on the abuse of foster care children and the sexual problems of foster care children are held. Petitioner received and successfully completed this training. Additionally, prior to the training, foster parents attend orientation during which the sexual abuse of foster care children is also discussed. On March 26, 2001, Respondent placed C.Q., a foster child, in Petitioner's home. Prior to C.Q.'s placement in Petitioner's home, Respondent had placed six foster care children in her home since Petitioner's licensure. Prior to C.Q.'s placement, Respondent's social worker, who was C.Q.'s counselor, visited Petitioner's home. At the time, Petitioner was being visited by her minor granddaughter (two years of age) for several days, and Petitioner made Respondent aware of such visitation. Respondent's social worker examined the sleeping arrangements in Petitioner's home. Petitioner had a bedroom for herself, in which she and her granddaughter slept, and a separate bedroom with two beds. C.Q. would be sleeping in the separate bedroom. The separate bedroom was close to and visible from the living room. At the time of C.Q.'s placement, neither Petitioner nor FBCH had received C.Q.'s "green book." A green book contains a foster child's background and would reveal a foster child's history regarding sexual abuse.1 Consequently, C.Q.'s green book would reveal whether she was abused and whether she was an abuser.2 Whether a foster child was sexually abused may not be known by Respondent at the time of placement with a foster parent. At the time of placement, Respondent was not aware that C.Q. was a sexual abuse victim and a sexual abuser. If Respondent discovers that a foster child has been sexually abused, it requires the foster parent to sign a Family Safety Contract. The main purpose of a Family Safety Contract is to make sure that foster parents ensure the well-being of children in their home and to remind foster parents of the condition of sexually abused children. The Family Safety Contract contains, among other things, three sections: "Prevention Rules," "Intervention Strategies," and "Signatures." The Prevention Rules section contains 16 paragraphs, which have standard language, and three of the paragraphs have blank lines for information to be filled-in by Respondent's social worker. The three paragraphs state the following: The following people are approved to supervise contact between the children: must have his/her own room. may never be placed in a bedroom with a younger child. The Intervention Strategies section states in pertinent part the following: 1. In the event that prevention measures break down and child-on-child sexual abuse occurs or appears to be imminent, caretaker will immediately. Separate the children. Report the incident to the child(ren)'s caseworker(s) and to the Abuse Hotline. Cooperate with authorities conducting an investigation. The Signatures section contains spaces for, among other things, the signatures of the caregiver, family service counselor, and family service counselor supervisor, together with a space next to each signature for the date each signed. On April 11, 2001, Respondent's social worker reviewed a Family Safety Contract, regarding C.Q., with Petitioner. Petitioner signed the Family Safety Contract the same day. FBCH was not present during the review of the Family Safety Contract with Petitioner, which was contrary to the agreement that FBCH had with Respondent. FBCH was not notified by Respondent of the review of the Family Safety Contract with Petitioner. The agreement between Respondent and FBCH requires, among other things, the presence of FBCH whenever Respondent reviews a Family Safety Contract with one of FBCH's foster parents. Before a Family Safety Contract is presented to a foster parent, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention Rules should be completed by Respondent. Petitioner contends that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Prevention Rules were not completed at the time the Family Safety Contract was reviewed with her. Petitioner testified that she would not have permitted the placement of a child, who had been sexually abused, with her and that the social worker/counselor for C.Q. stated to her (Petitioner) that all foster parents signed the Family Safety Contract. Petitioner briefly reviewed the Family Safety Contract and signed it. Respondent contends that the said paragraphs were completed. The social worker/counselor for C.Q. who reviewed the Family Safety Contract with Petitioner did not testify at hearing nor was her testimony preserved by deposition. The social worker/counselor for C.Q. was out of the country on leave and her leave was approved in February 2002. However, the supervisor of the social worker/counselor for C.Q. testified that the social worker/counselor executed an affidavit and testified as to what the affidavit stated regarding the completion of paragraphs 4 and 5. The affidavit was not offered or entered into evidence. Further, the supervisor testified that she, as a supervisor, would not have signed the Family Safety Contract with blank paragraphs. An executed Family Safety Contract was entered into evidence. Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention Rules state as follows: The following people are approved to supervise contact between the children: Carmen Infante Rep. of Dept. of Children and Families Rep. of Florida Baptist C should must have his/her own room. C may never be placed in a bedroom with a younger child. (C.Q.'s name was blackened out on the copy entered into evidence, leaving only an initial, in order to comply with the requirement that confidentiality be maintained.) Paragraph 4 was modified by Respondent striking the word "must" and inserting "should" which indicated that it was not mandatory that C.Q. have her own room. The change made in paragraph 4 reflected Petitioner's bedroom arrangements for foster children. The signature lines contained the signatures of Petitioner, the social worker/counselor for C.Q., and the supervisor of the social worker/counselor for C.Q. The date that each person signed the Family Safety Contract was April 11, 2001. Considering the testimony, evidence and proof required, the contention of Petitioner is found to be more credible and a finding of fact is made that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Family Safety Contract were not completed at the time that the Family Safety Contract was reviewed with Petitioner. Subsequent to the placement of C.Q. with Petitioner on March 26, 2001, and to the signing of the Family Safety Contract on April 11, 2001, but prior to on or about May 28, 2001, Respondent placed another foster child, J.F., with Petitioner. The record fails to indicate the date on which J.F. was placed with Petitioner. J.F. was younger than C.Q. J.F. was sexually abused. Respondent did not inform Petitioner that J.F. was sexually abused. Before placing J.F. with Petitioner, Respondent was aware of the number and location of Petitioner's bedrooms and the sleeping arrangements Petitioner had for foster children. Consequently, Respondent was aware or should have been aware that C.Q. and J.F. would be sharing the same bedroom, but not the same bed. In spite of this awareness by Respondent, it placed J.F. with Petitioner. Petitioner placed C.Q. and J.F. together in the separate bedroom. Each child had their own bed in the separate bedroom. Respondent, in paragraph 4 of the Family Safety Contract, indicated that C.Q. "should" have her own room. Petitioner's bedroom arrangements would not accommodate separate bedrooms for the foster children, and Respondent was aware of such arrangements. Petitioner complied with the Family Safety Contract. Petitioner was able to view the bedroom, where the foster children were located, from the living room. The door to the bedroom was not closed. On or about May 28, 2001, Petitioner went to the foster children's bedroom to check on them. Upon entering the bedroom, she discovered the children engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior. Petitioner immediately stopped the inappropriate behavior. Petitioner notified both FBCH and Respondent of what she had observed. The foster children were removed from Petitioner's home. Respondent has not placed any more foster children with Petitioner since the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order renewing the foster home license of Carmen Infante. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2002.
