16-007557 Vision Youth Services Of Florida, Inc. vs. Department Of Children And Families Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, March 31, 2017.

Summary: Respondent properly revoked Petitioner's provisional licenses as a child caring agency where Petitioner failed to notify the Department of non-renewal of lease for group home and to prepare a plan for placement of the residents.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

VISION YOUTH SERVICES OF

FLORIDA, INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 16 - 7557

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A f inal hearing was held in this case on February 8, 2017,

via video teleconference between sites in Orlando and

Tallahassee, Florida, before Suzanne Van Wyk, Administrative Law

Judge for the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Angela Christian, p ro s e

Vision Youth Services of Florida, Inc.

1401 Riverplace Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32207

For Respondent: Roger L.D. Williams, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

5920 Arlington Expressway

Jacksonville, Florida 32231 - 0083

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Department of Children and FamiliesÓ (the

ÐDepartmentÑ) intended decision to revoke the provisional child -

caring agency licenses of Vision Yo uth Services of Florida, Inc.

(ÐVision YouthÑ), is correct.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated November 4, 2016 (revocation letter), the

Department informed Vision Youth that its three provisional

child - caring agency licenses would be revoked, pursuant to

section 409.175(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2016). 1/ According to

the revocation letter, the proposed revocation was based upon

Vision YouthÓs failure to substantially comply with specified

provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, failure to

impleme nt a Corrective Action Plan (ÐCAPÑ) dated February 27,

2016, and failure to provide an environment that promotes the

well - being of children in need of out - of - home care.

On November 15, 2016, Vision Youth timely filed a formal

request for a hearing to dispu te the facts underlying the

DepartmentÓs decision. The Department forwarded the hearing

request to the Division of Admi nistrative Hearings on

December 22, 2016, for assignment of an administrative law

judge.

The final hearing was scheduled for, and commen ced on,

February 8, 2017.

The Department presented the testimony of Kendra Bradley,

Family Services Specialist in its foster care licensing unit;

and Paul D. Kellam, the DepartmentÓs Northeast Region al Program

Manager. The DepartmentÓs Exhibits 1 throug h 6 were admitted

into evidence.

Vision Youth presented the testimony of Angela Christian,

its o wner; Davaris Pilcher, its Executive Director; and Monique

Walker, its lead staff person. Vision YouthÓs Exhibits 20, 21,

and 37 through 39 were admitted int o evidence.

The one - volume T ranscript of the hearing was filed on

February 23, 2017. Both parties timely filed Proposed

Recommended Orders which have been considered by the undersigned

in preparing this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Depar tment is the agency charged with the

responsibility of licensing foster homes and residential child -

caring agencies for children in the state of Florida dependency

system. See § 409.175, Fla. Stat.

2. Vision Youth is a licensed child - caring agency that

p rovides group home care for children who are in the state

dependency system.

3. Vision Youth began operation in Florida when the

Department licensed a six - bed male group home in west Duval

County on February 27, 2015 (the Cheryl Ann home).

4. The Departm ent licensed two additional homes (the

Hamden and Rutland homes) for Vision Youth on June 8, 2015.

5. Angela Christian is the owner and registered agent for

Vision Youth. Ms. Christian started working in the foster care

industry in the year 2000.

6. The early administration of Vision Youth was

disorganized and disjointed.

7. Tierika Terry was the original Executive Director of

Vision Youth, but resided in Atlanta during her brief tenure.

8. Ms. Terry was eventually relieved of her duties, and

someone identified in the record only as Ms. Bahiyya replaced

her for a Ðcouple of months , Ñ sometime between March 2015 and

November 2015.

9. Vision Youth was also briefly under the direction of

Shoshana Ellis , sometime between November 2015 and February

2016.

10 . An initial license issued for the operation of a group

home expires one year from the date of issuance, unless earlier

suspended, revoked, or voluntarily returned. See

§ 409.175(6)(i), Fla. Stat.

11. Accordingly, Vision YouthÓs license for the Cheryl Ann

home was set to expire on February 26, 2016. The licenses for

the Hamden and Rutledge homes were set to expire on June 7,

2016.

12. On January 12, 2016, Department L icensing S pecialist,

Angela Bradley, conducted an initial on - site visit for the

purpo se of Vision YouthÓs re - licensure.

13. Ms. Bradley noted Ðmany areas of non - compliance, lack

of documentation in all areas reviewed, and no communication

from the Executive Director.Ñ In light of Ms. BradleyÓs

findings, the Department issued a no - placeme nt hold for all

three Vision Youth group homes.

14. On February 2, 2016, Vision Youth hired Davaris

Pilcher as its Executive Director.

15. On February 15, 2016, Ms. Bradley made her first

follow - up visit to Vision Youth. Ms. Bradley noted that Vision

Yo uth had hired Mr. Pilcher as the Executive Director and

additional staff to meet the administrative needs of the

program. As a result of Ms. BradleyÓs follow - up visit, the

Department extended the Ðno placementÑ holds until Ðsuch time

[Vision Youth] has de monstrated sufficient compliance with all

areas of Florida Administrative Code 65C - 14.Ñ

16. Ms. Bradley, along with Paul D. Kellam, the

DepartmentÓs Program Manager , created a Re - licensing Review

Document (the ÐReportÑ) on February 23, 2016. The Report

i ncluded findings noted during the review of Vision YouthÓs

compliance with sections of Florida Administrative Code Rule

65C - 14, expressed in a percentage of compliance. 2/

17. The Report rated Vision Youth 78 percent compliant

with the ÐAdministrative Revi ewÑ requirements of the rule.

Notably, Vision Youth failed to submit documentation of a

financial audit for fiscal year 2015, a current operating

budget, and an annual meeting of its governing body (along with

minutes thereof), as required by r ule 65C - 14. 026 ( 3), (4), (5)

and (6)(e). Further, the agency failed to notify the Department

in writing within 30 days of the change of Executive Director

and failed to provide an updated list of Vision YouthÓs advisory

board members, as required by rules 65C - 14.026( 7) and 65C -

14.006(3)(b) and (6), respectively.

18. The Report rated Vision Youth 50 percent compliant

with the ÐFood and NutritionÑ requirements of rule 65C - 14.051

for failing to provide documentation that a registered dietician

consulted with Vision Yout h for menu planning on a quarterly

basis. In fact, the Report noted no documentation of any

reviews by a registered dietician since initial licensure in

February 2015.

19. The Report rated Vision Youth 49 percent compliant

with the ÐEmployee, Personnel F ile ReviewÑ requirements of the

rule. Of note, the employee files for the two employees who

would be employed for a full year by March 2016 contained no

documentation of any ongoing in - service training.

20. In sum, the Report noted 42 different areas of non -

compliance by Vision Youth and placed Vision YouthÓs overall

compliance with rule requirements at 65 percent.

21. The 65 percent overall compliance rating given to

Vision Youth after the initial re - licensure visit was well below

the DepartmentÓs expec tation. Mr. Kellam testified, credibly,

that he had never before encountered a licensee with such a low

compliance percentage.

22. The DepartmentÓs regional policy defines substantial

compliance as a minimum of 90 percent compliance . Vision Youth

was ex pected to be, at minimum, 90 percent compliant for each

area reviewed during their next re - licensing review.

23. The Department may issue a provisional license to an

agency which fails to meet licensing requirements at the time of

the study, but which the Department believes is able to meet the

licensing requirements within the time allowed by the

provisional license. See § 409.175(7)(a), Fla. Stat.

24. The Report recommended that all three group homes be

issued a provisional license for an annual period effective

February 28, 2016.

25. On February 27, 2016, the Department issued three

provisional licenses to Vision Youth: No. 100054140 for Vision

Youth 3/ ; No. 100054141 for the Rutland h ome; and No. 100054139

for the Hamden home. The provisional licens es were effective

until February 26, 2017, unless renewed, withdrawn, or revoked

for cause. 4/

26. Issuance of a provisional license is contingent upon

the submission to the Department of an acceptable written plan

to overcome the deficiencies by the expir ation date of the

provisional license. § 409.175(7)(a), Fla. Stat. This plan is

commonly referred to as the CAP.

27. On February 29, 2016, Ms. Bradley forwarded to

Mr. Pilcher and Ms. Christian a formal CAP for Vision Youth.

The CAP was executed by bot h Vision Youth and the Department on

March 15, 2016.

28. The CAP consolidated the 42 deficiencies noted in the

Report to 26 corrective action items. For each action item, the

CAP identified the party responsible for taking that action, and

set forth a ta rget date for completion of the corrective action.

The deadline for completion of a ll CAP requirements was

October 21, 2016.

29. In the subsequent months, Vision Youth made

significant progress toward addressing the 42 areas of

deficiency noted in the Re port and substantial progress in

implementing the CAP.

30. On April 4, 2016, Ms. Bradley made her second follow -

up visit to Vision Youth. Based upon the progress made toward

satisfying the CAP requirements, Ms. Bradley lifted the

placement hold on one of the three homes. 5 /

31. On May 4, 2016, Ms. Bradley made her third follow - up

visit to Vision Youth. Based upon the progress noted by

Ms. Bradley, she lifted the placement hold on a second home.

Non - renewal of Hamden H ome L ease

32. On June 24, 2016, Holl y Anderson, the property manager

for the Hamden home, sent a Notice of Non - Renewal (Notice) to

the Hamden home address via certified mail.

33. The Notice was addressed to Lestine Lewis. Ms. Lewis

is Ms. ChristianÓs sister, but is neither a Vision Youth

e mployee nor a resident of the Hamden home. Ms. Lewis is the

lessee of the Hamden home property.

34. The notice advised that the Hamden home lease would

not be renewed, and that the premises must be vacated no later

than August 31, 2016.

35. The certifie d letter return receipt card was not

introduced in evidence. The record does not establish the date

on which, and by whom, the Notice was received on behalf of

Vision Youth.

36. Ms. Christian did not become aware of the Notice until

July 31, 2016, when i t was brought to her attention by a Vision

Youth employee.

37. Ms. Christian first attempted to address the non -

renewal issue by working with the property manager to identify

another suitable facility to which to relocate the children.

After reviewing av ailable properties with Ms. Anderson, however,

Ms. Christian rejected those properties as unsuitable.

38. Neither Ms. Christian nor Mr. Pilcher notified the

Department of the Notice.

39. Eventually, the Department received information from a

third party that the homeownersÓ association of the neighborhood

in which the Hamden home was located was beginning an Ðeviction

processÑ against Vision Youth. The record does not support a

finding of the exact date the Department received this

information. The reco rd supports a finding that the Department

was informed of Ðeviction proceedingsÑ against Vision Youth in

mid - to late - August.

40. Upon receipt of this information, Ms. Bradley

immediately scheduled a meeting with Ms. Christian and

Mr. Pilcher to discuss t his issue and ascertain Vision YouthÓs

plan for relocating the children in the event of an eviction.

The meeting was held on August 24, 2016, a mere seven days

before the Hamden home was to be vacated pursuant to the Notice.

41. At that meeting, Ms. Chri stian explained to

Ms. Bradley and Mr. Kellam that there was no eviction proceeding

underway, but that the Hamden home lease would not be renewed.

This was the first time the Department received notice that the

Hamden home must be vacated by August 31, 20 16. At the meeting,

Ms. Christian advised that she was exploring with the leasing

agent the possibility of relocating the children to a larger

home under the leasing agencyÓs control.

42. Following the meeting with Vision Youth, Ms. Bradley

contacted Ms. Anderson for information regarding the pending

plans to relocate the children to another property.

Ms. Anderson informed Ms. Bradley that all available properties

had been previously rejected by Ms. Christian.

43. In reaction to this news, as well as th e failure of

Vision Youth to timely inform the Department of the significant

pending change affecting Vision YouthÓs program, the Department

issued another Ðplacement holdÑ on all three Vision Youth homes.

44. On August 26, 2016, Vision Youth notified the

Department that they would be moving all of the children from

the Hamden Home to the Cheryl Ann Home, which was vacant at the

time due to placement holds.

45. On August 30, 2016, Ms. Bradley was informed by

Ms. Anderson that the Notice was actually deliv ered to Vision

Youth on June 24, 2016.

Revocation

46. According to the CAP, Vision Youth had until

October 21, 2016, to complete all corrective actions.

47. On October 4, 2016, the Department sent an email to

Ms. Christian and Mr. Pilcher noting that th ree items from the

CAP were still outstanding: documentation of board information,

including official minutes of board meetings; documentation of

quarterly menu consultations by a registered dietician; and a

completed financial audit for fiscal year endin g 2015.

48. On November 4, 2016, the Department notified Vision

Youth by letter that it intended to revoke Vision YouthÓs

licenses for the following three reasons: Noncompliance with

rule 65C - 14, failure to complete the CAP, and actions materially

affec ting the health or safety of children in the care of Vision

Youth .

Noncompliance with Rule

49. In the revocation letter, the Department alleged that

Vision Youth had not substantially complied with the following

provisions of the Florida Administrative Co de:

65C - 14.006, Administration and Organization

(2) Incorporation

* * *

(5) The Governing body shall meet no less

than once per year.

(6) The governing body responsibilities are

to:

* * *

(b) evaluate in writing the directorÓs

performance annua lly

* * *

(e) maintain written minutes of all

meetings, which shall be open to inspection

by the department.

65C - 14.026, Organization

(4) Audit: The agency shall have financial

records audited annually.

65C - 14.051, Food Service

The facility shall assign a staff member to

the overall management of the food service.

If this person is not a professionally

registered dietitian, consultation on menu

planning shall be obtained at least

quarterly from a professionally registered

dietitian or the local he alth department.

65C - 14.056, Staff Development

(2) The facility shall ensure that staff

members working directly with children

receive at least 40 hours of training

activities during each full year of

employment. Activities related to

supervision of t he staff memberÓs routine

tasks shall not be considered training

activities for the purposes of this

requirement.

(3) The facility shall document that

appropriate training received by direct

child care staff includes, but is not

limited to the following areas:

(a) Administrative procedures and overall

program goals;

(b) Understanding of childrenÓs emotional

needs and problems which affect and inhibit

their growth;

(c) Family relationships and the impact of

separation;

(d) Substance abuse: recogniti on and

prevention;

(e) Identification of and reporting

responsibilities in regard to child abuse

and neglect;

(f) Principles and practices of child care;

(g) Behavior management techniques,

including crisis management and passive

physical restraint;

(h) Emergency and safety procedures; and

(i) The screening supervision and use of

volunteers.

50. The second reason for revocation was Vision YouthÓs

failure to complete the CAP requirements. The first two reasons

are closely connected because the C AP was designed to bring

Vision Youth into substantial compliance with the cited rule

requirements.

Governance

51. Regarding the governing body issue, the CAP required

the Vision Youth Services Board of Directors or Advisory Board

to meet no less than onc e per year, maintain written minutes of

all meetings, and ensure that those minutes are readily

available to the Department for inspection. These tasks had a

target date of March 28, 2016.

52. Ms. Christian testified that the Vision Youth Board of

Direct ors met once prior to opening the first home in 2015, and

openly admitted that the Board did not record minutes from the

meeting.

53. Vision Youth did not, and could not, comply with the

CAP requirement to produce minutes from the 2015 Board meeting.

54. Vision Youth did not produce a record of a Board

meeting for 2016 or any minutes thereof.

55. As to the 2016 Board meeting, Ms. Christian explained

only that the Board was not due to meet again at the time Vision

Youth was cited for failure to comply. S he offered no evidence

of plans for a 2016 Board meeting or internal procedures to

ensure that minutes would be recorded and maintained.

Food Service

56. Regarding the menu issue, the CAP required Vision

Youth to provide menu consultation by a registered dietician on

a quarterly basis and to maintain documentation of the quarterly

reviews. This task had target dates of March 28, 2016 ; June 28,

2016 ; September 28, 2016 ; and December 28, 2016.

57. Vision Youth introduced no evidence at the final

hearing to satisfy the quarterly menu consultation requirement.

58. Mr. Kellum testified that the only documentation

Vision Youth provided to the Department during the CAP

compliance period was an email from a dietician in October 2016.

He testified that the docum entation would have satisfied only

the September quarterly target date.

Financial Audit

59. Regarding the financial audit, the CAP required Vision

Youth to engage the services of a CPA by March 28, 2016, to

ensure that a financial audit for the 2015 fisca l year is

completed to assess the programÓs financial standing. The CAP

required Vision Youth to provide a copy of the 2015 financial

audit to the Department by July 1, 2016.

60. The purpose of a financial audit is to ascertain

whether the child - caring a gency is financially secure and stable

enough to provide ongoing care for the children placed in the

agencyÓs care.

61. At hearing, Ms. Christian did not dispute the fact

that Vision Youth failed to subm it a 2015 financial audit.

Ms. Christian openly adm itted that the programÓs recordkeeping

was poor during its first year of operation.

62. Vision Youth could not comply with the requirement to

produce a 2015 financial audit no matter how much time the

Department allowed in the CAP.

Staff Development

63. Regarding Staff Development, the Department rule

requires every direct - care staff person to complete a minimum of

40 hours of inservice training per year. The CAP required

Vision Youth to (1) ensure that all employees were aware of the

training requiremen ts; (2) develop a training log to record the

dates, type of training, and training facilitator for each

training completed; (3) maintain documentation (certificates,

etc.) of all completed staff training; and (4) ensure that staff

completes at least 10 hou rs of training each quarter. This

action had a target date of ÐMarch 28, 2016 and ongoing.Ñ

64. The evidence conflicted as to how many staff Vision

Youth employed, and for what length of time, on the date the

Report was issued. Ms. Bradley testified th at Vision Youth had

two employees on staff for a full year on or about the date of

the re - licensure inspection. Ms. Christian testified that, at

the time of the re - licensure review, only one employee had been

with Vision Youth for a year, and that the emp loyee had

completed 31 of the required 40 training hours at that time.

65. All employees of Vision Youth were required to have

10 hours of training per quarter. During the CAP compliance

period, Vision Youth did not provide the Department with any

docume ntation of employee training.

66. Vision Youth introduced no documentation at the final

hearing of quarterly staff training for any of its employees.

The only evidence was Ms. ChristianÓs testimony that the single

employee who was employed for a full yea r on the date of

Ms. BradleyÓs inspection had received 31 hours, and that all

employees had received at least 40 hours of ongoing training for

2016 as required by the CAP.

67. Notably, both the rule and the CAP required Vision

Youth not only to provide th e training, but also to maintain

documentation of the training via a training log in employee

files and applicable training certificates.

68. Even if Ms. ChristianÓs testimony that the training

was provided , was accepted as credible and persuasive, it wou ld

not establish compliance with the requirement to document the

training.

Percentage of Compliance

69. Ms. Bradley establish ed early in the hearing that

90 percent compliance with Department rules was Ðsubstantial

complianceÑ for purposes of licensure. Rating Vision Youth by

percentage of compliance with each rule section was a critical

component of the DepartmentÓs Report.

70. By the time the CAP compliance period ended, Vision

Youth had completed 22 out of 26 required corrective actions.

71. Ms. Brad ley testified repeatedly that Vision Youth was

Ðright at 90 percentÑ compliance in November 2016 when the

Department issued the revocation letter. She later testified

that her Ðbest guessÑ would put Vision Youth at an Ð89 to 90

percentÑ compliance rate.

72. The DepartmentÓs revocation letter was issued despite

Vision YouthÓs substantial compliance with the applicable rule

requirements.

ChildrenÓs Well - Being

73. The last reason for revocation given by the Department

in the revocation letter was the Depar tmentÓs concern with

Vision YouthÓs inability to provide an environment that promotes

the well - being of children in need of out - of - home care. The

Department specifically cited Vision YouthÓs failure to notify

the Department and the child care agencies res ponsible for the

children placed with Vision Youth of the impending relocation

from the Hamden Home. The Department was also concerned that

Vision Youth failed to develop a proper plan to re - locate the

children when Vision Youth knew that their lease for the Hamden

Home would not be renewed. These two concerns hindered the

DepartmentÓs responsibility for safety of the children homed

with Vision Youth.

74. Ms. Christian attempted to justify her decision to

handle the matter without involving the Departmen t by

introducing Vision YouthÓs Internal Location Change Policy

(ÐLocation PolicyÑ), which reads as follows, in relevant part:

A location change may be necessary when one

or more of the following is true:

The child presents the potential to harm

another r esident that resides in the current

location.

The child feels physically, psychologically

or emotionally uncomfortable because of the

personalities, ages or backgrounds of one or

more residents in the current location.

Vision Youth Services placement tea m feels

the child would be a better fit at another

location.

The placing agency and or case manager

requests that the child not share a home

with a specific child in care for the safety

of one or more residents.

75. The Location Policy does not address the situation at

hand -- complete closure of a group home. Instead, the Location

Policy authorizes movement of individual children from one

placement to another in order to address a childÓs specific

behavioral or emotional needs.

76. Vision YouthÓs failur e to disclose the pending non -

renewal to either the Department or the child - placing agencies,

and its utter failure to secure a plan for relocating the

children even seven days prior to the impending vacancy date,

especially at a time when it was under str ict scrutiny by the

Department, suggests Vision Youth was more concerned with its

reputation than the well - being of the children placed in its

care.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

77. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding. § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

78. Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, provides as

follows, in relevant part:

(1)(a) The purpose of this section is to

protect the health, safety, and well - being

of all children in the state who are cared

for by family foster homes, residential

child - caring agencies, and child - placing

agencies by providing for the establishment

of licensing requirements for such homes and

agencies and providing procedures to

determine adherence to these requireme nts.

* * *

(2) As used in this section, the term:

(a) ÐAgencyÑ means a residential child -

caring agency or a child - placing agency.

* * *

(f) ÐLicenseÑ means ÐlicenseÑ as defined in

s. 120.52(10). A license under this section

is issued to a family foster home or ot her

facility and is not a professional license

of any individual. Receipt of a license

under this section shall not create a

property right in the recipient. A license

under this act is a public trust and a

privilege, and is not an entitlement. This

pri vilege must guide the finder of fact or

trier of law at any administrative

proceeding or court action initiated by the

department.

* * *

(i) ÐPersonnelÑ means all owners,

operators, employees, and volunteers working

in a child - placing agency, family foster

home, or residential child - caring agency who

may be employed by or do volunteer work for

a person, corporation, or agency that holds

a lic ense as a child - placing agency or a

residential child - caring agency, but the

term does not include those who do not work

on the premises where child care is

furnished and have no direct contact with a

child or have no contact with a child

outside of the pr esence of the childÓs

parent or guardian. For purposes of

screening, the term includes any member,

over the age of 12 years, of the family of

the owner or operator or any person other

than a client, over the age of 12 years,

residing with the owner or ope rator if the

agency or family foster home is located in

or adjacent to the home of the owner or

operator or if the family member of, or

person residing with, the owner or operator

has any direct contact with the children.

Members of the family of the owne r or

operator, or persons residing with the owner

or operator, who are between the ages of 12

years and 18 years are not required to be

fingerprinted, but must be screened for

delinquency records.

(j) ÐResidential child - caring agencyÑ means

any person, corporation, or agency, public

or private, other than the childÓs parent or

legal guardian, that provides staffed 24 -

hour care for children in facilities

maintained for that purpose, regardless of

whethe r operated for profit or whether a fee

is charged. Such residential child - caring

agencies include, but are not limited to,

maternity homes, runaway shelters, group

homes that are administered by an agency,

emergency shelters that are not in private

reside nces, and wilderness camps.

Residential child - caring agencies do not

include hospitals, boarding schools, summer

or recreation camps, nursing homes, or

facilities operated by a governmental agency

for the training, treatment, or secure care

of delinquent y outh, or facilities licensed

under section 393.067 or s. 394.875 or

chapter 397.

* * *

(5)(a) The department shall adopt and amend

licensing rules for family foster homes,

residential child - caring agencies, and

child - placing agencies. The department ma y

also adopt rules relating to the screening

requirements for summer day camps and summer

24 - hour camps. The requirements for

licensure and operation of family foster

homes, residential child - caring agencies,

and child - placing agencies shall include:

1. The operation, conduct, and maintenance

of these homes and agencies and the

responsibility which they assume for

children served and the evidence of need for

that service.

2. The provision of food, clothing,

educational opportunities, services,

equipmen t, and individual supplies to assure

the healthy physical, emotional, and mental

development of the children served.

3. The appropriateness, safety,

cleanliness, and general adequacy of the

premises, including fire prevention and

health standards, to pro vide for the

physical comfort, care, and well - being of

the children served.

* * *

(9)(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 hea lth 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.

79. In this proceeding, Vision Youth seeks review of the

DepartmentÓs intended revocation of i ts thre e provisional

residential child - caring agency licenses. 6 /

80. The undersignedÓs role in this proceeding is to

resolve disputed issues of material fact. The minimum standard

of proof for resolving disputed issues of material fact is a

preponderance of the evidence. Haines v. DepÓt of Child. &

Fams. , 983 So. 2d 602, 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

81. A penal or licensure disciplinary proceeding shall not

be based upon a preponderance of evidence. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla.

Stat.

82. Because the Department se eks revocation of Vision

YouthÓs licenses, this proceeding is penal in nature. DepÓt of

Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla.

1996); Bowling v. DepÓt of Ins. , 394 So. 2d 165, 172 ( Fla. 1st

DCA 1981); Haines , 983 So. 2d at 604.

83. Because this proceeding is penal in nature,

allegations made against the licensee must be proven by clear

and convincing evidence. Osborne Stern , 670 So. at 933; Pick NÓ

Save, Inc. v. DepÓt of Bus. & ProfÓl Reg. , 601 So. 2d 245, 249

(Fla. 1st DCA 199 2); Ag. for Pers. with Disab. v. Help is On The

Way, Inc. , Case No. 11 - 1620 (Fla. DOAH Feb. 3, 2012; Fla. APD

Apr. 16, 2012); Ag. for Pers. with Disab. v. Amanda and Co. ,

Case No. 08 - 1812 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 29, 2008; Fla. APD Feb. 2,

2009).

84. The Departmen t gave the following three reasons for

revoking Vision YouthÓs licenses. Vision Youth failed to

substantially comply with r ule 65C - 14; failed to complete the

CAP requirements; and failed to provide an environment that

promotes the well - being of children i n need of out - of - home care.

Each reason is addressed in turn.

Compliance with Applicable Rules

85. The Department failed to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that Vision Youth did not substantially comply with the

applicable rules. The record esta blished that the Department

deems 90 percent compliance with the administrative code

requirements to be substantial compliance. Ms. BradleyÓs

testimony with regard to Vision YouthÓs percentage of compliance

at the time of revocation alternated between Ðri ght at 90

percentÑ and a Ðbest guess of 89 or 90 percent.Ñ The Department

did not introduce the internal tool Ms. Bradley used to track

Vision YouthÓs progress toward addressing the 42 deficiencies

noted in the Report. The evidence was far from clear tha t

Vision Youth did not attain substantial compliance with the

applicable rule requirements before the revocation letter was

issued.

Completion of the CAP

86. Rule 65C - 14.116(3)(c)3. provides that failure of a

child - caring agency to timely comply with a co rrective action

plan Ðshall result in suspension, denial of re - licensure, or

revocation of the license.Ñ

87. The Department established by clear and convincing

evidence that Vision Youth failed to satisfy the CAP

requirements. Specifically, Vision Youth did not produce

written minutes of a Board of Directors meeting for 2015, a

financial audit for the 2015 fiscal year, and documentation of

10 hours of quarterly training of its employees , as well as

quarterly consultation on its menus by a registered dieti cian.

ChildrenÓs Well - Being

88. The final reason the Department gave for revoking

Vision YouthÓs license was its actions in regard to the Hamden

home property.

89. Vision Youth neglected to notify either the Department

or the child - placing agencies upon learning that its Hamden home

lease would not be renewed. The Department gained knowledge

through third parties, well after the Notice had been issued.

It was only after the Department reached out to Vision Youth,

that Vision Youth finally informed the D epartment of the

requirement to vacate the Hamden home by August 31, 2016.

90. Moreover, upon meeting with the Department, Vision

Youth was not forthcoming with its plan to relocate the

children. Ms. ChristianÓs explanation that she was working with

Ms. Anderson to relocate the children to another property under

the property managersÓ control was false. When Ms. Christian

gave that explanation, she knew she had rejected all available

properties as unsuitable.

91. Vision YouthÓs inaction in failing to no tify the

Department of the Notice may have been negligent, but her

subsequent actions regarding movement of the children to the

Cheryl Ann home were intentional and designed to protect her

reputation and conceal problems from the Department, when she

shoul d have been securing the childrenÓs well - being.

92. Further, Vision YouthÓs initial plan to move the

children to another property under the control of the property

manager would have resulted in placement of the children in an

unlicensed facility. Rule 6 5C - 14.003(5) provides that a license

is only valid for the facility located at the address documented

on the license. Vision Youth could not, on its own, move the

children from Hamden home to another facility and effectively

ÐtransferÑ its license to anot her physical address. Vision

Youth would have to apply for a license to operate a new

facility, which would have to undergo the same initial license

review and inspection as for any of its other group homes. The

only responsible course of action would ha ve been to notify the

Department upon receipt of the Notice and move quickly to extend

the notice of non - renewal while working with the Department to

identify a new facility and begin the licensing application

process.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families

enter a final order revoking Vision YouthÓs provisional child -

caring agency licenses numbered 100054140, 100054141, and

100054139.

DONE AND ENTERED th is 3 1st day of March , 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE VAN WYK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 3 1st day of March , 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ References to the Florida Statutes are to the 2016 version,

unless otherwise indi cated.

2/ Ms. Bradley testified that she calculated the percentage of

compliance with each rule requirement using an internal tool at

the Department. The internal tool was not introduced in

evidence.

3/ Although license number 100054140 does not speci fy the name

of the Vision Youth facility to which it applies, this

provisional license corresponds with the Cheryl Ann home.

4/ The provisional licenses at issue in this p roceeding expired

by operation of law on February 26, 2017. The revocation issue

is technically moot. However, neither party has filed a

suggestion of mootness or otherwise moved to dismiss the

proceeding. The undersigned enters this Recommended Order i n an

abundance of caution.

5/ The Hamden and the Rutland homes were the first two homes to

have their placement holds lifted by Ms. Bradley, but it is not

possible to determine from the record which home had the

placement hold lifted first.

6 / Although the provisional licenses , which are the subject of

this proceeding , were issued during the re - licensure inspections

of Vision Youth facilities, the DepartmentÓs intended action is

not a denial of an agencyÓs renewal application. The agency

action letter specifically addresses revocation of Vision

YouthÓs three provisional licenses, not denial of its renewal

application. Had the action related to denial of Vision YouthÓs

renewal application, the Department would have had the lesser

burden to establish fac ts supporting its position by a

preponderance of the evidence. DepÓt of Banking & Fin. v.

Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); M.H. & A.H. v.

DepÓt of Child. and Fams. , 977 So. 2d 755, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA

2008); Fla. DepÓt of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co . , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla.

1st DCA 1981).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Paul Sexton, Agency Clerk

Department of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 204

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(eServed)

Angela Christian

Vision Youth Services of Flo rida, Inc.

1401 Riverplace Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32207

(eServed)

David Gregory Tucker, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

5920 Arlington Expressway

Jacksonville, Florida 32231 - 0083

(eServed)

Roger L.D. Williams, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

5920 Arlington Expressway

Jacksonville, Florida 32231 - 0083

(eServed)

Mike Carroll, Secretary

Department of Children and Families

Building 1, Room 202

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(eServed)

Rebecca Kapu sta, General Counsel

Department of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 204

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(eServed)

3 0

NOTICE OF RIGHT 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.