04-000713 Deborah Scurry vs. Department Of Children And Family Services Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, September 20, 2004.

Summary: Children were left in the care of an unqualified caregiver, a 15-year-old daughter. Recommend that revocation be set aside, that a $250 fine be imposed, and that a six-month provisional license be issued.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEBORAH SCURRY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 04 - 0713

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILY SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

P ursuant to notice and in accordance with Section 120.569

and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2003), a final

hearing was held in this case on May 6, 2004, in Fort Myers,

Florida, before Fred L. Buckine, the designated Administrative

Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Deborah Scurry, pro se

3963 Wheaton Court

Fort Myers, Florida 33905

For Respondent: Eugenie Rehak, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

Post Office Box 60085

Fort Myers, Florida 33906

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent proved the allegations contained in its

January 30, 2004, notic e of revocation of family day care home

registration letter to Petitioner.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 30, 2004, Respondent, the Department of Children

and Family Services (Department or Respondent), by certified

mail, notified Petitioner, Deborah Sc urry, that her family day

care home registration had been revoked for alleged violation of

Subsections 402.302(1), 402.302(7) and 402.313(1)(a)(4), Florida

Statutes (2003). Petitioner timely requested a de novo hearing

pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Sta tutes (2003).

On March 4, 2004, the matter was referred to the Division

of Administrative Hearings, and the Initial Order was entered.

On March 12, 2004, the parties' Joint Response to Initial Order

was filed, and on March 16, 2004, the Notice of Hearing ,

scheduling the final hearing for May 6, 2004, in Fort Myers,

Florida, was entered.

On April 15, 2004, Respondent's Motion for Telephone

Appearance was filed, and the Order granting Respondent's motion

was entered. The final hearing was held as scheduled on May 6,

2004.

At the final hearing, Petitioner testified in her own

behalf and presented the testimony of two witnesses: Susan B.

Davis, Respondent's family child care specialist, and Mary Ward,

Ward's Day Care operator. Petitioner offered one composi te

exhibit (P - 1), consisting of 17 items, which was accepted into

evidence.

Respondent presented the testimony of eight witnesses:

Susan Sherman, ARNP for the Child Protection Team; Marie Mead,

Child Protection Team investigator; L.D., nine - year - old day c are

attendee; J.S., five year - old day care attendee 1 (not permitted

to testify); Ted Leighton, Respondent's investigator; Celeste

Davis, Respondent's child care consultant; Trisah William,

Respondent's license specialist; Michelle Molly, Respondent's

licen se supervisor; and L.B., mother of D.B., the injured child.

Respondent offered 17 exhibits (R - 1 through R - 17), which were

accepted into evidence.

No transcript of the proceeding was ordered. Petitioner

did not submit a proposed recommended order. On May 17, 2004,

Respondent submitted a Proposed Recommended Order that was

considered by the undersigned in preparation of this Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the state agency responsible for

licensing and regulating child care facilities , including family

day care homes.

2. Petitioner, by and through aid, assistance, and

training of the federally funded Weed and Seed Support Group

program of the Fort Myers area, began her family day care home

provider training in 2001 and, upon completio n of training, was

registered as a family day care home from July 25, 2002, to

June 30, 2003.

3. On June 23, 2003, Respondent acted upon Petitioner's

re - registration application to provide child care in her home

for up to ten children, effective June 30, 2003, through

June 30, 2004. Respondent acknowledged that at the time

Petitioner's registration was acted upon, Leona Mark,

Petitioner's identified substitute caregiver, had cleared her

for background screening but she had not completed either the

minim um or 30 hours of family day care home training prior to

caring for children in a family day care home. Notwithstanding

the situation with Ms. Marks, Respondent's recommendation was to

"Issue registration to Deborah Scurry to provide child care in

her hom e for up to 10 children." Ms. Mark did not testify, and

the record contains no evidence that Ms. Mark completed her

training at any time prior to Respondent's notice of revocation

letter of January 30, 2004.

4. Respondent, by letter dated January 30, 200 4, informed

Petitioner that her family day care home registration was

revoked. The revocation letter gave the following basis for

revocation:

On December 22, 2003, the licensing unit

received a complaint that a nine month old

sustained a skull facture whi le in your

care. The complaint also stated that you

left your daycare children with your 15 year

old daughter.

During the investigation, you denied ever

leaving the daycare children alone and that

you always took them with you. The

Department, upon cond ucting interviews, has

determined that you did leave the children

with your 15 - year - old daughter, which is a

supervision violation.

The letter cited Subsections 402.302(1) and (7) and

402.313(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2003), as the provisions

determined to have been violated and the authority for

revocation of the registration.

The Injured Child

5. D.B. is Petitioner's nephew, and he was routinely

placed in her family day care home when his mother was working.

On Friday morning at approximately 6:30 a. m., on December 12,

2003, L.B., D.B.'s mother, left D.B., a nine - month - old child, in

Petitioner's family day care home.

6. At that time, neither L.B. nor Petitioner noticed a

bump on D.B.'s head. According to Petitioner, D.B. became

"fussy" during mornin g breakfast at approximately 7:00 a.m., at

which time she noticed a small bump on his head. The bump was

soft to her touch, and she thought no more about it. During

lunch, Petitioner's daughter noticed that the bump had gotten

larger and told her mother, who, by telephone, attempted to

reach L.B., but was unsuccessful.

7. When L.B. came to pick D.B. up at approximately 6:30 or

7:00 p.m., on December 12, 2003, Petitioner and L.B. discussed

the bump on D.B.'s head. L.B. recalled that while playing

D.B.'s sibling had hit him on the head with a plastic toy bat at

some earlier time and that D.B. had fallen out of bed and hit

his head on the floor. L.B. testified that she does not know

where D.B. hit his head. It could have happened at home while

playing wit h siblings, when he fell out of bed, or when he was

with his father. She was firm in her conviction and belief that

D.B. was not injured while in Petitioner's family day care home.

8. There is no evidence of record to account for D.B.'s

whereabouts on Sa turday and Sunday, December 13 and 14, 2003.

On Monday, December 15, 2003, L.B. dropped D.B. off at

Petitioner's family day care home. On Tuesday, December 16,

2003, D.B. was again dropped off at Petitioner's family day care

home. On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, Petitioner noticed that

the bump had gotten larger and called L.B. L.B. came later in

the day and carried D.B. to the Emergency Room at Cape Coral

Hospital for a medical examination.

Medical Examination of the Injured Child

9. A Medical Exami nation report, dated December 19, 2003,

was completed by Susan Sherman (Nurse Sherman), ARNP of the

Child Protection Team. The Medical Examination report provides

Dr. Michael Weiss' findings, which are as follows:

X - RAY FINDINGS: A copy of the report fo r CT

of the head without contrast and a complete

skeletal survey are available. These x - rays

were read by Dr. Michael Weiss on

December 19, 2003. On the CAT scan of the

head without contrast, the findings are as

follows, "The ventricles are normal in si ze

and midline in position. There is no

intracranial hemorrhage. No intra or extra -

axial fluid collection. There is a stellate

fracture of the left parietal bone. There

is also a high right parietal fracture

identified. There is no evidence of

depress ion on either side. There is an

associated soft tissue hematoma." The

impression of the CT scan is as follows:

"Biparietal skull fractures, rule out child

abuse ."

Findings and recommendations were reviewed

with Dr. Burgett at the time of study.

(Dr. Burgett is a pediatrician at the

Physician's Primary Care.) . . . (emphasis

added)

10. Notwithstanding the findings of Dr. Weiss, Nurse

Sherman reported her impression and plan as follows:

IMPRESSION: Biparietal skull fractures.

From the x - ray report, the skull fracture on

the left side of his head is a stellate

fracture. There is also a fracture of the

parietal bone on the right side of the head.

These injuries are consistent with physical

abuse.

PLAN: The child will be followed medically

by his p rimary care provider. At this time,

I do not recommend the child be sheltered.

My only recommendation is the child not

return to the day care setting. This mother

needs to find alternative childcare for

[D.B.].

11. It was reasonable for Nurse Sherman to take the

protective approach and recommend that D.B. not return to the

family day care home because she believed Petitioner had a

history of utilizing substitute caregivers who had not completed

required training, and, she also believed that on more tha n one

occasion in the past, Petitioner's child - to - child caregiver

ratio was exceeded. An acceptable ratio requires a specific

number of caregivers per the number of children within a

specific age range. Petitioner had more children than she had

certified caregivers required for the separate age range(s) of

children found in her family day care home. However, the

Department did not charge "past violations of overcapacity"

and/or "utilizing substitute caregivers who were not properly

qualified" in the Janu ary 30, 2004, revocation letter.

12. The evidence of record was inconclusive to demonstrate

to any reasonable degree of certainty: first, the date D.B.

sustained his injury/injuries; second, whether D.B. was injured

while in the care of Petitioner; third , whether D.B. was injured

while in the care of his mother; or forth, whether D.B. was

injured while in the care of his father.

13. On December 22, 2003, Respondent received a compliant

report of a license violation, to wit: over - capacity and

background screening. The complaint report was assigned to and

investigated by Celeste Davis and a second unnamed person.

Ms. Davis closed her report on December 23, 2003. Ms. Davis'

investigation found eight children in care: one infant, three

preschoolers, and four school - age children. Petitioner was

within her ratio at the time of this inspection. Through

interviews with the children at the day care, Ms. Davis

determined that Petitioner, on occasion, left her day care

children alone with L.S., her teenaged daughter, who was not a

qualified caregiver. Regarding D.B.'s head injury, Petitioner

informed Ms. Davis that the injury did not occur when D.B. was

in her care and probably occurred the night before D.B. was

brought to her home. Ms. Davis cited Petition er for one license

violation, leaving her day care children alone with her teenage

daughter.

14. Ted Leighton investigated an Abuse Hotline Report

filed on December 19, 2003. Mr. Leighton did not testify but

his written report was introduced into evidenc e without

objection. Respondent argued in its post - hearing submittal that

information Mr. Leighton received from his interviews with four

minor children, his review of reports from medical personnel and

health care providers, and his conclusion that "it w as

'probably' on December 15 or 16, 2003, D.B. was injured at the

family day care home accidentally by another child when the

Petitioner was not present," as fact. Respondent's argument is

not based on facts, but upon uncorroborated hearsay, assumptions

a nd conjectures of Mr. Leighton. For those reasons Respondent's

argument is rejected.

15. In support of Mr. Leighton's conclusions, Respondent

cited the testimony of Nurse Sherman. Nurse Sherman concluded

that D.B.'s injuries were "very serious and 'coul d have' been

life threatening, 'could have' happened accidentally 'if'

another child jumped off a bed, landing on D.B., while D.B. was

laying on the floor with a hard object under his head." The

intended purpose of Nurse Sherman's testimony was twofold: to

demonstrate the severity of D.B.'s injury and the location

D.B.'s injury was sustained. The inference drawn by Respondent

was that a lack of supervision was the primary cause of the

injury. This argument is likewise not based upon facts found in

the e vidence of record. Nurse Sherman's conclusions are but an

extension of Mr. Leighton's assumptions and conjectures. This

argument is likewise rejected.

16. D.B.'s mother recalled one occasion when D.B. had

fallen out of her bed at home. She testified th at her older

daughter told her that while playing with D.B., he had fallen

from his bed to the floor on more than one occasion at home.

She speculated that D.B. could have been injured at home or by

her three - year - old son, who when playing with D.B. had s truck

him on his head with a plastic toy bat. L.B. testified further

that she and Petitioner are related and that her three children

have been continuously in Petitioner's family day care home

since Petitioner has been qualified as a provider. She was

ce rtain that Petitioner did not and would not injure her

children. She testified that D.B. "could have" suffered the

injury to his head when he was in the care and custody of his

father over the weekend. Of the several possibilities of the

date, time, plac e, and in whose custody D.B. may have been when

the injury occurred, the mother was not certain.

17. The inconclusive and conflicting evidence regarding

D.B.'s whereabouts and the identification of the person or

persons who had custody of D.B. when his injury occurred is, as

it must be, resolved in favor of Petitioner. Respondent failed

to prove by clear and convincing evidence that D.B. was injured

when in the care, custody, and control of Petitioner while in

the family day care home as alleged in its notice of

registration revocation dated January 30, 2004.

Caregivers supervision and Over capacity

18. Respondent demonstrated that as of June 13, 2002,

neither Petitioner's 15 - year - old daughter nor any other person

present on the days of inspection who was serving as a caregiver

was properly trained. By evidence of record, Respondent

demonstrated that Petitioner was over capacity, based on the

child - to - child caregiver ratio on or about June 2, 2001. With

knowledge of the one occasion of over capacity b y Petitioner,

Respondent approved Petitioner's re - registration application on

June 23, 2002, effective through June 30, 2003, and permitted

Petitioner to provide care for up to ten children. The approved

re - registration increased Petitioner's child care c apacity.

Respondent's January 30, 2004, letter did not allege an over

capacity violation, and no other pleading filed by Respondent

contained information from which Petitioner could have been so

informed of the over capacity allegation.

19. Respondent fa iled to prove that D.B. sustained his

head injuries while in Petitioner's family day care home.

20. Respondent has shown that Petitioner did on one

occasion leave children in the care of a person or persons,

including Petitioner's 15 - year - old daughter, wh o were not

trained, certified, or qualified as substitute caregiver(s).

21. There is no evidence of record that Petitioner's

violation of child - to - child caregiver ratio demonstrated either

gross misconduct and/or willful violation of the minimum child

car e standards within the meaning of the statutes and rules

charged. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner did not

fully understand the child - to - child caregiver ratio

differentiations by age groups. Petitioner's lack of

understanding does not absolve he r of the obligation to know all

rules and regulations. It does, however, provide a reasonable

inference that the out - of - ratio situation was not an intentional

act on behalf of Petitioner.

Weed and Seed Support Group in the Fort Myers Area

22. Petitioner presented the testimony of Susan B. Davis,

a family child care specialist employed by the Weed and Seed

Support Group of the Fort Myers area. The purpose and

organizational goal of this federally funded agency is

identification of economically disadvantag ed persons who are

interested in becoming day care providers in their homes in

their respective communities. The methodology of the agency is

to first assist those persons identified with acquiring required

training and certification. Second, the agency assists the

trained candidate(s) with the application process through

Respondent.

23. According to Ms. Davis, the federal grant overall

objective is twofold: first, to seek, find, and train family

day care home providers in the community and second, to p rovide

a source of employment and income to the provider's family. As

a direct result of this community service, other families within

the economically disadvantaged community will have local and

affordable family child care service within their respectiv e

communities. By accomplishing the identification and training

of community child care providers, employed and unemployed

parents in need of day care in the various Fort Myers

communities will be the beneficiaries of the available family

day care home, t hereby enabling some parents to become employed

and enhancing employment opportunities for employed parents.

The Weed and Seed Support Group of the Fort Myers area offers

free help and support to self - employed child care providers.

24. In 2001, Ms. Davis identified and assisted Petitioner

in becoming a qualified child care provider. Ms. Davis assisted

Petitioner in acquiring her 30 hours of training to become a

qualified child care provider. She introduced Petitioner and

others to the rules and regulati ons of Respondent pertaining to

child care providers. Thereafter, she would visit with

Petitioner and others to whom she rendered assistance only as

her time and scheduling permitted. Ms. Davis' last visit with

Petitioner occurred sometime before Christm as of 2003. Though

she had no knowledge of the injury suffered by D.B., she offered

to render assistance and additional training, including

assisting Petitioner in acquiring a functional understanding of

Respondent's rules, regulations, proper maintenance of required

records, and correct completion of required reports and forms,

that would enable Petitioner to continue her self - employment

status as a qualified child care provider offering daily child

care services within her community.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2 5. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2003).

26. The Legislative intent in Section 402.301, Florida

Statutes (2003), is to protect the health, safety, and well

being and to promote the emotional and intellectual development

and care of children of the state. This legislative

responsibility is imposed upon Respondent.

27. Respondent has the burden to prove by clear and

convincing ev idence the grounds for revocation of Respondent's

family day care home license. See Department of Banking and

Finance v. Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla.

1996); Coke v. Department of Children and Family Services , 704

So. 2d 726 (Fla. 5th D CA 1998); Accord Marcia Edwards Family Day

Care Home v. Department of Children and Family Services , Case

No. 02 - 3784 (DOAH February 5, 2003), adopted in toto , DCF Case

No. 03 - 086 - FO (March 4, 2003); Department of Children and Family

Services v. Dorothy Dem psey Family Day Care Home , Case

No. 02 - 1435 (DOAH August 7, 2002), adopted in toto , DCF Case

No. 02 - 305 - FO (November 27, 2002).

28. The clear and convincing evidence standard has been

described as follows:

Clear and convincing evidence requires

that the evidence must be found to be

credible; the facts to which the witnesses

testify must be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and explicit and

the witnesses must be lacking in confusion

as to the facts in issue. The evidence must

be of suc h weight that it produces in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

Inquiry Concerning Judge Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994),

(quoting Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA

1983)) (internal brackets omitted). Accord Westinghouse

Electric Corporation, Inc. v. Shuler Brothers, Inc. , 590 So. 2d

986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rev. denied , 599 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.

1992)("Although this standar d of proof may be met where the

evidence is in conflict, . . . it seems to preclude evidence

that is ambiguous.").

Violations of the Licensing Statutes and Rules of the Florida

Administrative Code

29. Subsection 402.310(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003),

pr ovides that Petitioner may "deny, suspend, or revoke a license

. . . for the violation of any provision of ss. 402.301 - 402.319

or rules adopted thereunder."

30. The rules adopted by Petitioner to implement Sections

402.301 through 402.319, Florida Statute s (2003), are codified

in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 65C - 20.

31. The statutory child care standards have been

codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter

65C - 22, specifically Florida Administrative Code Rule

65C - 22.001(4), that outl ine the pertinent requirements

as follows:

(4) Ratios.

(a) The staff - to - children ratio,

established in Section 402.305(4), F.S., is

based on primary responsibility for the

direct supervision of children and applies

at all times when children are in c are.

(b) Mixed Age Groups.

1. In groups of mixed age ranges, where

children under 1 year of age are included,

one staff member shall be responsible for no

more than 4 children of any age group.

2. In groups of mixed age ranges, where

children 1 year of age but under 2 years of

age are included, one staff member shall be

responsible for no more than 6 children of

any age group.

32. Subsections 402.302(1) and (7), Florida Statutes

(2003), provide in pertinent part:

(1) "Child care" means the c are,

protection, and supervision of a child, for

a period of less than 24 hours a day on a

regular basis, which supplements parental

care, enrichment, and health supervision for

the child, in accordance with his or her

individual needs, and, for which a pa yment,

fee, or grant is made for care.

* * *

(7) "Family day care home" means an

occupied residence in which child care is

regularly provided for children from at

least two unrelated families and which

receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of

the children receiving care, whether or not

operated for profit. A family day care home

shall be allowed to provide care for one of

the following groups of children, which

shall include those children under 13 years

of age who are related to the caregi ver.

(a) A maximum of four children from birth

to 12 months of age.

(b) A maximum of three children from

birth to 12 months of age, and other

children for a maximum total of six

children.

(c) A maximum of six preschool children

if all are older th an 12 months of age.

(d) A maximum of 10 children if no more

than 5 are preschool age and, of those 5, no

more than 2 are under 12 months of age.

33. The specific statutory provisions of Subsection

402.313(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2003), determined to have

been violated by Petitioner, provides as follows:

Proof of a written plan to provide at

least one other competent adult to be

available to substitute for the operator in

an emergency. This plan shall include the

name, address, and telephone numb er of the

designated substitute.

34. So considered, the substantial and competent record

shows as follows: D.B. was injured. Respondent failed to

demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence the following

facts: the date D.B. was injured, the location D.B. received his

injury, and the person(s) under whose supervision and in whose

care was D.B. at the time his injury occurred. The reliable

evidence is ambiguous and, thus, contrary to the Department's

conclusions that D.B. was injured while in Petitione r's family

day care facility, under the supervision, and in the care and

control of Petitioner.

35. The record evidence is clear and convincing that

Petitioner left children at her family day care home during her

absence from the premises under the superv ision, care, and

control of an unqualified substitute caregiver.

36. The record evidence is clear and convincing that

Respondent's January 30, 2004, notice of license revocation

letter, resulting from inspections following a December 22,

2003, complaint, did not allege that "a history of prior

violations," such as a violation of Subsection 402.305(4),

Florida Statutes (2003), was included as the basis for the

licensure revocation. Thus, such violation cannot form the

basis for discipline in the instant pr oceeding. See Cortill v.

Department of Insurance , 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Appropriate Disciplinary Action for Violations

37. The appropriate disciplinary action for supervision

violations is consideration of the statutory factors delineated

in Subsection 402.310(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). Those

factors are the severity of the violation, including the

probability that death or serious harm to the health or safety

of any person will result or has resulted, actions (if any)

taken by Petiti oner to correct the violation, and any previous

violations. The evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner's

leaving the children in the care of her 15 - year - old daughter

resulted in death or serious harm to the children in her care.

38. The second fact or involves actions taken by Petitioner

to correct proven violation. Petitioner's 15 - year - old daughter

is no longer left to care for children when and if Petitioner is

absent from the premises.

39. The third factor deals with "previous violations."

Resp ondent has not cited Petitioner for any previous violations.

40. Respondent alleged but did not prove that D.B. was

injured while at the family day care home. Respondent alleged

but did not prove that Petitioner did not provide adequate care

and supervis ion for the child, D.B., while entrusted in her care

at the family day care home.

41. In consideration of the foregone and in keeping with

the Legislative intent to protect the health, safety, and well

being and to promote the emotional and intellectual d evelopment

and care of children of the state, the appropriate penalty in

this case would be to first, vacate and set aside the revocation

of Petitioner's license; second, impose a $250.00 fine on

Petitioner; and third, issue Petitioner a six - month provisio nal

license. The provisional license would require Respondent to

conduct monthly inspections to ensure that Petitioner and the

facility's caregiver staff are complying with applicable rules,

regulations, and statues.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoin g Finding of Facts and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family

Services enter a final order:

1. Finding that Petitioner left children at her family day

care home during her absence from the premises under the

supe rvision, care, and control of unqualified substitute

caregivers; and

2. Imposing on Petitioner a fine in the amount of $250.00;

and, upon payment thereof,

3. Set aside and vacate revocation of Petitioner's family

day care home license/registration; and

4 . I ssue to Petitioner a six - month provisional license.

DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

FRED L. BUCKINE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Heari ngs

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 20th day of September, 200 4.

ENDNOTE

1/ This child of five years in age was questioned in private by

the undersigned, and it was determined that the child was not

competent to testify because of his inability to remember

specifics of the matters of concern.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Eugenie Rehak, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

Post Office Box 60085

Fort Myers, Florida 33906

Deborah Scurry

3963 Wheaton Court

Fort Myers, Florida 33905

Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk

Department of Children and

Family S ervices

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Building 2, Room 204B

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 RIG HT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to 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.