01-004218 Joey Tolbert And Donna Tolbert vs. Department Of Children And Family Services Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, July 31, 2002.

Summary: Evidence presented does not support revocation of Petitioners` foster care license for the reasons relied upon by the Department in its revocation letter. Recommend rescinding foster care revocation letter.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOEY TOLBERT )

and DONNA TOLBERT, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 01 - 4218

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN )

AND FAMILY SERVICES, )

)

Responde nt. )

______________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

on April 8 and 9, 2002, in Shalimar, Florida, before the

Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated

Administrative Law Judg e, Barbara J. Staros.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Randall Were, Esquire

Post Office Box 856

Milton, Florida 32572

For Respondent: Eric D. Schurger, Esquire

Department of Children

and Family Services

106 Governmental Center, Suite 601

Pensacola, Florida 32501

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of

Children and Family Services should revoke the foster care

license of Joey and Donna Tolbert.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter d ated August 24, 2001, the Department of Children

and Family Services (Department) advised Petitioners, Joey and

Donna Tolbert (the Tolberts), that the Department was revoking

their foster care license. As grounds therefore, the Department

alleged that the Tolberts failed to comply with Sections 65C -

13.009(1)(e)5., 65C - 13.020(1)(c)1., and 65C - 13.010(4)(i),

Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, the letter alleged

that the Tolberts violated the Bilateral Services Agreement

entered into by the Tolberts a nd the Department.

Petitioners disputed the revocation and timely requested an

administrative hearing. The Department forwarded the request

for hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or

about October 29, 2001. A formal hearing was schedul ed for

January 8 and 9, 2002. Petitioners filed an unopposed Motion

for Continuance, which was granted. The hearing was rescheduled

for February 25 and 26, 2002. The Department did not receive

the Order Granting Continuance and Re - Scheduling Hearing in a

timely fashion and, therefore, filed an unopposed Motion for

Continuance which was granted. The hearing was rescheduled for

April 8 and 9, 2002.

Prior to the hearing, the Department filed a Motion for

Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena Directed t o District

Administrator Charles Bates. The motion was taken up at the

commencement of the hearing. After hearing arguments of

counsel, a ruling on the motion was deferred until the

conclusion of the other testimony.

At hearing, Petitioners presented th e testimony of the

Petitioners, Joey Tolbert and Donna Tolbert, and nine other

witnesses, Mary Martin, Sally Townsend, Ruben Bryant, Janice

Berry, Betty Franklin, Gerald Reese, Marianne Vance, Jane

Crittenden, and Carolyn Sue Kimbro. Petitioners presented the

testimony of Arlene Johnson by deposition. Petitioners'

Exhibits 1 through 9 were admitted into evidence, including the

deposition transcript of Arlene Johnson. Respondent presented

the testimony of six witnesses, Carlita Bennett, Mary Martin,

Sally Townsend, Kathi Guy, Patricia Franklin, and Richard

Messerly. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 8 were admitted into

evidence. Official recognition was taken of pertinent

provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and Florida

Statutes.

At the conclusi on of the testimony, the Department's Motion

for Protective Order was denied and the parties were granted

until April 23, 2002, to take Mr. Bates' deposition. By request

of the parties during a subsequent telephone conference call,

the time in which to co nduct Mr. Bates' deposition was extended.

The transcript consisting of two volumes was filed on

April 19, 2002. The deposition transcript of Charles Bates was

filed on May 21, 2002. The parties requested more than 10 days

in which to file proposed rec ommended orders. That request was

granted. Petitioners filed an unopposed Motion for Extension of

Time to file proposed recommended orders which was granted. The

parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders on June 7,

2002, and July 8, 2002, which ha ve been considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to this proceeding, the home of

Joey and Donna Tolbert was licensed by the Department as a

foster home. They were initially licensed provisionall y in

December of 1998 for one year. They received a regular license

in 1999 and retained a regular license until December 1, 2000,

when they were issued license number 1200 - 008 - 2, a child

specific license with a capacity of two children.

The Relicensure P rocess

2. Prior to issuing the child specific license, two

Department employees of the Department, Mary Martin, a

relicensing counselor for foster homes, and Ann Brock, a family

services counselor, conducted a relicensing visit to the

Tolbert's home on Oc tober 12, 2000. Donna Tolbert was present

but Joey Tolbert was out of town. During the home visit, a

Bilateral Service Agreement (Agreement) was signed by

Mrs. Tolbert and Ms. Martin. The Agreement was signed and dated

by Mr. Tolbert and again by Ms. Ma rtin on October 17, 2000.

3. The relicensing visit resulted in a Foster Home

Relicensing Summary written by Mary Martin. The Summary

recommended that the Tolberts be issued a regular license

effective December 1, 2000 through December 1, 2001, for the

ca pacity of two children. The Summary was signed by Mary Martin

on October 26, 2000, and read in pertinent part as follows:

The Tolbert family is an invaluable asset to

this Department. They have made themselves

available on a regular basis for the

placeme nt of children when needed. Both

Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert are experienced in

childcare and they have three (3) children

with special needs whom they adopted prior.

They should not be asked to take numerous

children with severe behavioral problems or

teenager s.

It appears Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert have

satisfied the Florida Administrative Code,

Chapter 65C - 15, requirements. It is

respectfully recommended that the Tolbert

family be issued a REGULAR license,

effective December 1, 2000, through December

1, 2001, for the a capacity of two (2)

children, ages birth (0) through twelve (12)

years of either gender. Children with

severe behavioral problems and teenagers are

not to be placed in the Tolbert home.

4. However, Ms. Martin later wrote an addendum to the

li censing summary. According to Ms. Martin, she was asked by

her supervisor, Jill Green, to write the addendum. The addendum

is undated but references the October 12, 2000, home relicensing

visit that resulted in her original recommendation. There is

also an entry dated October 16, 2000, which is a date prior in

time to her signature to the original relicensure summary, and

an entry dated November 17, 2000. The addendum relates to

matters concerning the Tolberts and their adopted son, Mi. 1/

5. Richard Messerly has worked for the Department for

approximately 22 years and works in protective investigations in

Pensacola. From June 1999 through September 2001, he was the

program operations administrator for the central licensing unit

of the Department. In that position, he had authority over

foster care licensure. He supervised Mary Martin and her

supervisor, Jill Green. Mr. Messerly signed Ms. Martin's

relicensure summary on December 4, 2000, and initialed both

pages of her addendum. He also created a written history of the

Tolbert foster home which concluded with a recommendation that

the Tolberts' foster home license be revoked:

SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS

The Tolbert family has a positive

licensing history of capably caring for many

of our foster c hildren. However, a serious

change has occurred in the family's

willingness to work with our staff,

including rebuffing our attempts to offer

them assistance with the disruption of an

adoptive placement. The Tolberts have

attempted to convince others tha t they had

been requesting assistance for M for a very

long period of time and that this is flatly

not borne out in licensing records. The

matter was never brought to our attention

until the visit in October 2000, at which

time the matter was promptly ref erred to the

adoptions unit, who responded promptly.

Since that time the family has not

cooperated with any attempts to assist them

in that matter, and they seem to be

insensitive to M's plight, and are

completely focused on regaining their prior

license d status, as if nothing had happened.

Contacts with Pat Franklin, Kathi Guy,

Sally Townsend and others reflect the

absence of any prompt attempts to get help

dealing with M's behaviors, yet many

requests were made regarding foster children

in their c are with similar problems during

the same time frame. It appears the family

was more focused on attending the needs of

foster children to the exclusion of

sensitivity to their own (adopted) child's

cries for help. Even when the needs were

identified, the family was unwilling to

become involved in attempts to remedy the

problems and appeared to have given up on

the child.

I am very uncomfortable with the

inappropriate position this family has taken

in regard to our family safety staff, as

well as lic ensing staff, and do not see how

we can hope to interact positively with them

given their recent radical behaviors and

threats. I feel that they have violated the

Bilateral Service Agreement and have failed

to "Treat all members of the foster care

team wi th respect and courtesy." I

recommend that we revoke the license using

the violation of the agreement in

conjunction with their other oppositional

behaviors, omissions, and misrepresentations

reflected in family safety foster care and

adoptions records.

6. On December 1, 2000, Mr. Messerly signed a letter on

behalf of Charles Bates addressed to the Tolberts which read:

Dear Mr. And Mrs. Tolbert:

Your home has been relicensed for the

continuance placement of D and M.R. only.

No other placements or overc apacity requests

will be authorized at this time.

A regular license is issued for twelve

months pending the outcome of matters

presently before the Circuit Court.

If you have questions or wish to discuss

this further, please contact Jill Greene,

Foster C are Licensing Supervisor at (850) -

595 - 8451.

7. On June 4, 2001, Mrs. Tolbert met with Charles Bates,

District Administrator for District 1 of the Department. This

meeting was at Mrs. Tolbert's request regarding her foster care

licensure status. During that meeting, Mrs. Tolbert complained

to Mr. Bates about certain adoption case workers.

8. On August 24, 2001, Charles Bates sent a letter to the

Tolberts notifying them of the revocation of their license. The

letter reads in pertinent part as follows:

RE: Revocation of Foster Home License.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert:

This letter is to inform you that the

Department of Children and Families has made

a decision to revoke your foster home

license. The basis for this decision is

your failure to com ply with Florida

Administrative Code 65C - 13 and the Bilateral

Service Agreement (form CF - FSP 5226) which

you executed.

Florida Administrative Code

65C - 13.009(1)(e)5. states:

Work in a partnership. Develop partnerships

with children and youth, birth fam ilies, the

department, and the community to develop and

carry out plans for permanency.

Florida Administrative Code

65C - 13.010(1)(c)1. states:

Substitute care parents are expected to work

cooperatively with the counselor as a member

of a treatment team i n seeking counseling,

participating in consultation, and preparing

and implementing the performance agreement

or permanent placement plan for each child.

Florida Administrative Code

65C - 13.010(4)(i) states:

The substitute care parents must be able to

acc ept supervision by department staff and

participate in and support case plans for

children in their homes. Specifically,

substitute care parents must be included in

the development of performance agreements or

permanent placement plans, and in the

carryin g out of these plans.

As part of your foster care licensing,

you executed a bilateral Service Agreement.

The Bilateral Service Agreement that you

signed enumerated the Administrative Code

responsibilities and detailed

responsibilities of foster pare nts. The

paragraphs violated are listed below in

pertinent part:

h. To notify the department immediately of

a potential change in a family composition,

significant health changes or any other

condition that may affect the child's well -

being.

o. Obtain authorization from the department

prior to spending money for which repayment

is expected.

p. To accept the direction and supervision

given by department to assist in caring for

the foster child.

q. To work cooperatively with the

department to attend scheduled meetings to

discuss the child and his family and to meet

the needs of the child.

r. To treat all members of the foster care

team (i.e., the department, child's family,

and GALS) with respect and courtesy.

As stated in the service agreemen t,

non - compliance with any of the above

provisions can result in termination of the

service agreement and may also result in the

department revoking the home's license.

You have failed to comply with the

above code citations and service agreement

pro visions in that you have accused

departmental staff of failing to disclose

complete information to you and of

misrepresenting statements that you have

made. You have not worked cooperatively

with the department employees who offered to

assist you and your child; and have not

worked in partnership with the department.

Specifically, you have previously

stated you were obtaining therapy for a

child, didn't agree with the therapist's

recommendation, and were obtaining a

psychiatric evaluation and assessm ent for

the child, when in fact you did not do any

of those things. A review of the department

records reflected concerns you mentioned to

the department in October 2000, regarding

your child's disruptive behavior. However

you would accept no assistance even though

the department offered extensive assistance.

You surrendered your adopted child later

that same month.

Further, you have stated to a

department employee that Ms. Peggy Custred

and Ms. Sally Townsend should not work for

the department, h ave accused them of

wrongdoing, and have stated that you "will

have their jobs." You have failed to treat

members of the department with respect and

courtesy.

Given the above problems, I find that

it would not be in the children's best

interests to continue licensing your foster

home and am permanently revoking your

license.

The Tolberts as foster parents

9. The overwhelming evidence shows that the Tolberts were

excellent foster parents. Jane Crittenden, licensing supervisor

for the Department, wh o was a foster care supervisor at the

times material to this proceeding, acknowledged that the

Tolberts received the award of Foster Parents of the Year in May

of 2000 for the year 1999. She also acknowledged that as far as

she knew, the Tolberts excelled as far as their work as foster

parents; the foster children in their care did quite well; the

Tolberts always seemed to provide a loving, nurturing home to

foster children placed there; the Tolberts were called on by the

Department to take extra children beyond their cap, which they

agreed to do; and the Tolberts cooperated with her and her case

workers during the period of time she worked with them.

10. Arlene Johnson, a former guardian ad litem for a

foster child in the Tolberts' home from December 199 8 until July

1999, visited the Tolbert home about twice a week during that

time. She has been in a lot of foster homes and described the

Tolberts' home as "the best one I've been in."

11. Gerald Reese, a family service counselor for the

Department, wor ked with the Tolberts over a period of 6 to 7

months in 1999 and 2000 while he was a case worker. During that

time, Mr. Reese did not have problems dealing with the Tolberts,

did not observe any instance in which the children were not

adequately provided for, and observed that the foster children

in the Tolberts' home were happy.

12. Richard Messerly acknowledged that the Tolberts were

exemplary foster parents as far as the care they provided to the

foster children in their care.

13. Mr. Messerly also ac knowledged that the only staff the

Tolberts had problems with were particular members of the

adoption staff, not the Department's foster care staff.

The wallpaper expense

14. Carlita Bennett was employed by the Department from

1986 until March of 2002. When she was working for the

Department in the capacity of a foster parent recruiter in May

of 2001, she sent an e - mail message to Mary Martin regarding the

Tolberts which contained the following:

11/04/99 A restitution claim form was

submitted by Mrs. T for damage to wallpaper

caused by 2 yr. Old. The bill total was

$1,151.04 to replace wallpaper in living

room, dining room, kitchen and hall. PS

Counselors were not made aware of the damage

until repairs were made.

15. According to Ms. Bennett, it is regular procedure for

someone from the department to go out to a foster home and look

at damage before repairs are made. The Bilateral Services

Agreement requires the foster parents to obtain authorization

from the Department prior to spending money for which repayment

is expected. According to Ms. Bennett, this policy was not

followed in this instance. Ms. Bennett did not explain why she

sent the e - mail message on May 30, 2001, to Mary Martin

referencing an incident that took place two and one - half yea rs

earlier.

16. According to Mrs. Tolbert, a former two - year - old

foster child in her care ripped the wallpaper in the dining room

and the living room. Her dining room, kitchen, and hallway are

all one color. According to Mrs. Tolbert, she gave an estima te

of the repair work to Shiela Campbell, an employee of the

Department.

17. Richard Messerly acknowledged that this matter of the

expense for wallpaper would not in and of itself have resulted

in the Department revoking the Tolberts' foster care license.

At most, the Department would have only talked to the Tolberts

had there not been other issues about which the Department was

concerned.

Notification to Department of change of condition

18. The August 24, 2001, revocation letter from Mr. Bates

alleged that the Tolberts failed to notify the Department of a

potential change in conditions in the home that might affect the

well - being of foster care children in the home. This allegation

relates to behavior problems of the Tolberts' adopted son, Mi.

19. Th e Tolberts adopted Mi. in September of 1998. They

signed surrenders of Mi. in November of 2000. The Tolberts'

surrender of Mi. was central to the Department's decision to

revoke the Tolbert's foster care license. 2/

20. Mi. began having serious behavio r problems in 1999.

Mrs. Tolbert recalls telling Gerald Reese, the foster care

worker assigned to the Tolberts at that time, about problems

with Mi. Mr. Reese acknowledged that Mrs. Tolbert mentioned to

him problems she was having with Mi. to which he re sponded that

she should bring it to the attention of the adoption case

worker.

21. The Tolberts' adoption case worker was Sally Townsend.

Mrs. Townsend recalls that Mrs. Tolbert stopped by her office

three times when Mrs. Tolbert was in the Ft. Walton Beach

Service Center to see other department employees. Mrs. Townsend

acknowledged that Mrs. Tolbert told her of behavior problems

with Mi. the first time she stopped by Mrs. Townsend's office.

The second time Mrs. Townsend recalls that Mrs. Tolbert told her

Mi.'s behavior problems were better. The third time, however,

Mrs. Tolbert informed Mrs. Townsend that Mi.'s behavior was much

worse.

22. Mrs. Tolbert remembers these encounters with

Mrs. Townsend differently. According to Mrs. Tolbert, she met

wit h Mrs. Townsend approximately 10 times during which she spoke

to her about Mi.'s behavior problems.

23. According to Mrs. Townsend's case notes, Mrs. Tolbert

told her on October 24, 2000, that Mi. was urinating all over

the house, had gotten a butcher kni fe out of a drawer in the

kitchen, and shoved a puppy's head under a piece of furniture.

24. Evidence was presented at hearing regarding whether

or when the Tolberts received notice that Mi. had significant

problems before he was adopted by the Tolberts. However, what

is important for purposes of this proceeding is when was the

Department notified of Mi.'s problems. The Department knew of

Mi.'s previous problems prior in time to the Tolberts adopting

Mi. and were told as early as 1999 that the Tolberts were

experiencing behavior problems with Mi.

25. Kathi Guy is an adoption program specialist for the

department. She met with the Tolberts immediately after

Mrs. Tolbert met with Mr. Bates on June 4, 2001. On June 21,

2001, she wrote a memorandum to Cha rles Bates concerning the

issues relating to the Tolberts. Regarding the issue of the

Tolberts' responsibility of notifying the Department of Mi.'s

behavior in relation to the foster children in the home, Ms. Guy

wrote, "It is unclear what responsibility the Tolberts had to

inform Central Licensing of M's behaviors that may have had

injurious effects on foster children in their care."

Working in partnership

26. The June 24, 2001, revocation letter alleges that the

Tolberts failed to work in partnership wi th the Department and

did not obtain certain services for Mi. although they were

offered. It is important to remember that the provisions to

which Mr. Bates' revocation letter references are part of the

Bilateral Services Agreement that pertained to the T olberts'

role as foster parents. However, Mi. was their adopted son, he

was not a foster child at that time.

27. Further, there is ample evidence in the record that

the Tolberts sought and received services for Mi. over time,

although they were in disa greement with the Department regarding

certain services during the time immediately preceding the

surrender of Mi. Marianne Vance is a first grade teacher. Mi.

was in her class for two years. According to Ms. Vance, Mi.

received testing in school for le arning disabilities and for

"everything possible." When Mi.'s behavior problems became

worse during his second year in Ms. Vance's class, Mrs. Tolbert

sought assistance from the school. The school counselor worked

with Mi. and Mrs. Tolbert. According to Ms. Vance, the Tolberts

did everything possible in seeking help or assistance.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

28. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statute s.

29. The Department of Children and Family Services is the

agency charged with the responsibility of licensing foster homes

in the state of Florida. Section 409.175, Florida Statutes.

30. The Department seeks the revocation of the Tolberts'

license . Accordingly, as the party asserting the affirmative of

an issue before this administrative tribunal, the Department has

the burden of proof. Florida Department of Transportation v.

J.W.C. Company , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, in

accord ance with the definition of "license" contained in Section

409.175(2)(f), Florida Statutes, the licensure status previously

awarded to the Tolberts is not a professional license and does

not carry a property right. Therefore, the Department must

establish facts which support its position of imposing

administrative fines by a preponderance of the evidence rather

than by the clear and convincing standard normally imposed in

professional license cases. Department of Banking and Finance

v. Osborne Stern Compa ny , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996).

31. Paragraphs 409.175(8)(a) and (b) read as follows:

(8)(a) the department may deny, suspend, or

revoke a license.

(b) Any of the following actions by a home

or agency or its personnel is a ground for

denial, suspension , or revocation of a

license:

1. An intentional or negligent act

materially affecting the health or safety of

children in the home or agency.

2. A violation of the provisions of this

section or of licensing rules promulgated

pursuant to this section.

32. Rule 65C - 13.009(1)(e)5., reads as follows:

(e) The goal of the Group Preparation and

Selection Program is to prepare individuals

and families to make an informed decision

about becoming foster or adoptive families.

The decision is made with the dep artment and

is based on the capability and willingness

to take on the "role" and develop the skills

needed to foster or adopt. Foster and

adoptive families who make good decisions

and grow in their new roles work best with

the department, birth families a nd others.

These partnerships help children and youth

have stability and permanence with a family.

As successful foster and adoptive parents

you must be able to:

* * *

5. Work in partnership. Develop

partnerships with children and youth, birth

famili es, the department, and the community

to develop and carry out plans for

permanency.

33. Rule 65C - 13.010(1)(c) and (4)(i), reads as follows:

(c) Substitute Parent Responsibilities.

1. Substitute care parents are expected to

work cooperative ly with the counselor as a

member of a treatment team in seeking

counseling, participating in consultation,

and preparing and implementing the

performance agreement or permanent placement

plan for each child.

* * *

(4) Responsibilities of the Substitu te Care

Parents to the Department.

(i) The substitute care parents must be

able to accept supervision by department

staff and participate in and support case

plans for children in their homes.

Specifically, substitute care patents must

be included in the carrying out of these

plans.

34. The June 24, 2001, revocation letter cited violations

of Rules 65C - 13.009(1)(e)5, and 65C - 13.010(1)(c)1. and(4)(i),

Florida Administrative Code, as well as five provisions of the

Bilateral Service Agreement for fo ster parents. Further, the

letter referenced circumstances surrounding the Tolberts'

surrender of Mi. The surrender was accepted by a court of

competent jurisdiction and will not be second guessed or

reevaluated.

35. As a threshold matter, Mi. was not a foster child.

The Bilateral Service Agreement does not apply to issues

relating to Mi. While there was evidence that there was a

technical violation of the agreement regarding a former foster

child and the submission of the wallpaper expense, the

Depart ment acknowledged that this matter, in and of itself, does

not constitute grounds for revocation.

36. The evidence presented does not support revocation of

the Tolberts' foster care license for the reasons relied upon by

the Department in the June 24, 200 1, revocation letter. While

the relationship between the Department's adoptive staff and the

Tolberts is strained at best, it should not prevent the parties

from making an effort to work together in the future regarding

the Tolberts' provision of care to foster children.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it

is

RECOMMENDED:

That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a

final order rescinding its revocation of the Tolberts' foster

care license.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2002, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

BARBARA J. STAROS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Divis ion of Administrative Hearings

this 31st day of July , 2002.

ENDNOTES

1/ Because two children with the same initials were referenced

during the hearing, this child was designated "Mi." for the

duration of the hearing to distinguish him from an other child

identified as "Me."

2/ In their opening statement and throughout the hearing,

Petitioners objected strenuously to evidence concerning their

adopted son, Mi., and circumstances surrounding his surrender

being admitted into evidence. It is not within the purview of

this tribunal to second guess the appropriateness of or the

circumstances surrounding a surrender which was approved by the

appropriate court. Accordingly, only those facts surrounding

Mi. which are relevant to the issue of the foster care license

revocation will be addressed here.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Randall Were, Esquire

Post Office Box 856

Milton, Florida 32572

Eric D. Schurger, Esquire

Department of Children

and Family Services

106 Governmental Cente r, Suite 601

Pensacola, Florida 32501

Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., 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

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Building 2, Room 204

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right t o submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.