18-000234 Parent Support, Llc, D/B/A Cares Treatment vs. Department Of Children And Families Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, September 27, 2018.

Summary: Agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner violated chapter 397 and that license renewal applications should not be approved.

S TATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PARENT SUPPORT, LLC, d/b/a

CARES TREATMENT,

Petitioner,

vs. Case Nos. 18 - 0230

18 - 0234

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge D. R. Alexander conducted a hearing

in these cases by video teleconference at sites in Orlando and

Tallahassee, Florida, on June 25, 2018.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Roberto Torres, Jr., pro se

Suite 254

8297 Champions Gate Boulevard

Champions Gate, Florida 33896 - 8387

For Respondent: T. Shane DeBoard, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

Suite S - 1129

400 West Robinson Street

Orlando, Florida 32801 - 1707

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Petitioner's applications to renew

licenses for two Residential Level II facilities in Davenport,

Florida, should be denied and a $2,500.00 fine imposed for the

reasons given in the Department of Children and Families'

(Department) Amended Denial of Applications & Imposition of Fines

issued on February 8, 2018.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On November 27, 2017, Petitioner filed applications to renew

two Residential Level II facility licenses located in Davenport,

Florida. On December 1, 2017, the Department issued two letters

denying the applications. Petitioner timely requested a hearing

for each application, and the matters were referred by the

D epartment to the Division of Administrative Hearings and

assigned Case Nos. 18 - 0230 and 18 - 0234. The two cases were

consolidated on January 22, 2018. On February 16, 2018, the

Department was authorized to amend the bases for its denial.

Numerous papers seeking various types of relief were filed

by Petitioner and the Department during the course of this

proceeding. A resolution of those matters can be found on the

docket sheet or in the record of the final hearing. A 207 - page

Motion to Strike Respondent ' s Claim for Fraud on the Court,

Spoliation, and Discovery Abuse and Alternative Motion for Other

Sanctions filed by Petitioner just prior to hearing is denied.

At the hearing, Petitioner was represented by its chief

executive officer and manag er , Roberto Torres, Jr. Petitioner

presented no witnesses. Instead, it relied on Mr. Torres' cross -

examination of Department witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2,

16, 17, 18, 73, 74, and 77 were accepted in evidence. 1/ The

Department presented the testimony of si x witnesses. Department

Exhibits 1 through 5, 7 through 10, 12, 13, 15 through 20, and

2 2 through 27 were accepted in evidence. 2/ Exhibits 25, 26, and

27 are depositions taken in May 2018 and attended by both

parties. Finally, official recognition was taken of numerous

Florida and Arizona statutes and rules cited in Petitioner's

Motion for Official Recognition of Federal and State Laws filed

on June 20, 2018. 3/

A two - volume Transcript of the hearing was filed on

August 22, 2018. The Department a nd Petitioner filed proposed

recommended orders (PROs) on September 19 and 21, 2018,

respectively, and they been considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

A. Background

1. The Department is charged with the responsibility of

regulating the licensing and operation of residential treatment

facilities pursuant to chapter 397, Florida Statutes (2017).

2. Petitioner is a Delaware limited liability corporation

authorized to conduct business in the S tate of Florida. Subject

to the outcome of this proceeding, Petitioner is licensed to

operate two Residential Level II facilities in Davenport under

the name Cares Treatment. One facility is located at 146 Sunset

View Drive (Case No. 18 - 0230), the other at 389 Sand Ridge Drive

(Cas e No. 18 - 0234). The licenses were issued on December 15,

2016, and were to expire on December 14, 2017. Each license

authorizes Petitioner to "provide substance abuse services for

Adults and/or Children/Adolescents for the following component:

Residenti al Level 2 (6 beds)." 4/ Resp. Ex. 2. The Torres family

home is not a licensed facility and services cannot be provided

to residents who reside at that location.

3. Petitioner is not licensed to provide services under the

Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP), the Outpatient Program

(OP), or the Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP). 5/ These services

require a separate license from the Department. In December

2017, Petitioner filed with the Department new applications to

provide those services. However, t he applications were denied

and no appeal was taken.

4. According to the renewal applications, Petitioner

provides a "residential treatment facility for children and

adolescents." Resp. Ex. 3. Each facility "is a free - standing

residential facility which provides a structured living

environment within a system of care approach for children,

adolescents and adult[s] who have a primary diagnosis of mental

illness or emotional disturbance and who may also have other

disabilities." Id.

5. Petitioner's fac ilities are a family - run business.

Roberto Torres, Jr. (Mr. T orres), is the Chief Executive Officer

and manager of the limited liability corporation; Cecilia Torres,

his wife, is the Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer; Karla Torres,

a daughter, is the Vice President/Chief Administrative Officer;

Roberto Torres, III (the son), is the Secretary/Chief Information

Officer; and Kristina Torres, a daughter, is the Ambassador/Chief

Relationship Officer. Resp. Ex. 4.

6. On November 27, 2017, Petitioner filed it s applications

for renewal of the two licenses. On December 1, 2017, the

Department issued separate, but identical, letters denying both

applications on the grounds they were not timely filed and they

were incomplete. Resp. Ex. 5. On February 16, 2018, the

Department was authorized to amend its letters of denial with a

single amended denial document, which combined the original

charges in the two letters into Counts I and II and added new

Counts III, IV, and V. Resp. Ex. 1. The amended denial letter

al so seeks to impose a $2,500.00 administrative fine for

violating various Class II rules. The specific rules are not

identified in the original or amended charging documents, but the

Department's PRO cites Florida Administrative Code Rule 65D -

30.003(1)(a) and "rules set forth in 65D - 30" as the rules on

which it relies. Because proper notice of the specific rules was

not given, the rule violations have not been considered.

7. The charges in the amended denial letter can be

summarized as follows:

Count I - The application for the facility at

146 Sunset View Drive was not timely filed

and was incomplete in violation of sections

397.403 and 397.407(8).

Count II - The application for the facility

at 389 Sand Ridge Drive was not timely filed

and was incomplete in violation of sections

397.403 and 397.407(8).

Count III - In November 2016, O.G., a

16 - year - old female who had been recently

discharged from a Baker Act facility, was

admitted for treatment of substance abuse and

mental health issues. After resid ing a few

months at the Sunset View location, she was

moved to the Torres family home, an

unlicensed facility, where she remained for

one or two months. By providing services at

that unlicensed location, Petitioner violated

section 397.401(1). She was th en moved to

the Sand Ridge location for two or three

months before being returned to the Torres

family home. She continued to receive

substance abuse treatment at the family home

until her discharge two or three months

later. This constitutes a second vi olation

of the same statute. While under the care of

Petitioner, O.G. was subjected to actions

which resulted in verified abuse reports

against Mr. Torres and his son and

contributed to the delinquency and

exploitation of a child. Such conduct

constitute s a threat to the health or safety

of O.G. in violation of section

397.415(1)(d).

Count IV - On October 19, 2017, J.W., who

transferred from a Baker Act facility, was

accepted by Petitioner for care and to

receive "partial hospitalization program"

servic es, which Petitioner is not licensed to

provide. This constitutes a violation of

sections 397.401(1) and 397.415(1)(a)2.c.

J.W. was later discharged in contravention of

his wishes and desires, which resulted in him

relapsing and again being Baker Acted. This

conduct constitutes a threat to J.W.'s health

or safety in violation of section

397.415(1)(d).

Count V - On January 23, 2018, the Department

attempted to conduct an onsite inspection at

both licensed facilities to review J.W.'s

files, but was denied access to the premises.

Petitioner later failed to respond to a

written request by the Department for records

relating to J.W. and O.G. This conduct

constitutes a violation of section 397.411.

8. The charging document asserts the conduct in Count III

violates four Class II rules (not otherwise identified), for

which a $500.00 fine should be imposed for each violation; and

the conduct described in Count IV violates "applicable" Class II

rules (not otherwise identified), for which a single $500.00

penal ty should be imposed. Rule 65D - 30.003(1)(a), the only rule

cited in the Department's PRO, requires in relevant part that

"all substance abuse components" be provided "by persons or

entities that are licensed by the department pursuant to

Section 397.401, F. S."

B. The Charges

i. Counts I and II

9. Section 397.407(8) provides that "the Department may

deny a renewal application submitted fewer than 30 days before

the license expires." For Petitioner to meet this deadline,

license renewal applications w ere due on or before November 15,

2017. An application is not considered filed until an

application with the signature of the chief executive officer is

submitted by the applicant.

10. Around 3:30 p.m. on November 27, 2017, Mr. Torres spoke

by telephon e with Ms. Harmon, the Department System of Care

Coordinator, regarding three new licensure applications he was

filing. During the conversation, he was reminded that renewal

applications for his two existing licenses had not been filed.

Mr. Torres respon ded that he "would have to get on that."

Properly signed renewal applications were submitted

electronically at 5:00 p.m. and 5:42 p.m. that afternoon.

11. In his cross - examination, Mr. Torres attempted to

establish that the Department's website, the Pr ovider Licensing

and Designation System (PLADS), was periodically inoperative, and

this prevented him from filing his on - line applications in a

timely manner. However, there is no credible evidence to support

this claim. In fact, after Mr. Torres raised this issue early on

in the case, Ms. Harmon reviewed the activity log of Mr. Torres'

two on - line applications and found that he began the application

process in late August or early September 2017, but did nothing

further until he hit the submit button aft er speaking with her on

November 27, 2017. Also, during this same period of time, the

PLADS program (to which all applicants have access) indicated

that the applications were in "Waiting Approval" status, which

meant the applications were "in process" but had never been

submitted. Therefore, the applications were not timely filed. 6/

12. Section 397.403(1)(f) requires license applicat ions to

include, among other things, "proof of satisfactory fire, safety,

and health inspections." Neither application fil ed on

November 27, 2017, included an updated Treatment Resource

Affidavit, a current Fire and Safety Inspection form, and a

complete and current Health Facility and Food Inspection form.

Therefore, the applications filed on November 27, 2017, were

incomp lete.

ii. Count III

13. On November 17, 2016, O.G., then a 16 - year - old female,

was admitted for treatment at the facility. O.G. had a history

of bi - polar episodes, depression, and drug abuse. Before seeking

treatment at Petitioner's facility, she ha d been Baker Acted

twice. After learning about Petitioner's facility through

another provider, O.G.'s family placed her in the facility to

address her substance abuse and behavior problems.

14. Upon admission, a treatment plan was devised by a

licensed mental health counselor (LMHC), with a target completion

date of May 17, 2017. Resp. Ex. 10. The treatment plan listed

four staff members overseeing her case: Karla Torres (case

manager); the LMHC; and S.F. and K.V., two "caregivers" or

interns. Id. O.G. was discharged from the facility nine months

later on August 14, 2017. Petitioner was paid approximately

$166,000.00 by O.G.'s parents for her nine - month stay.

15. O.G. was initially placed in the facility located at

146 Sunset Drive, where she re mained for approximately three

months. She was then moved to the Torres family home at

2347 Victoria Drive in Davenport for two or three months. The

Torres home is not a licensed facility. By housing her at an

unlicensed location and providing services during that period of

time, Petitioner violated section 397.401(1), which makes it

unlawful to provide substance abuse services at an unlicensed

location. O.G.'s parents were unaware that their daughter was

residing in the unlicensed family home.

16. Af ter Mr. Torres and O.G. "got into an argument," she

was moved to the facility at 389 Sands Drive for several months.

She then returned to the Torres home, where she remained for two

or three months until she was discharged. By housing her at an

unlicense d location and providing substance abuse services,

Petitioner violated section 397.401(1) a second time.

17. During her stay at the Torres home, Mr. Torres

discussed "sex" with O.G.; he told her that he cheated on his

wife; and he complimented her "quit e a few times" for having "a

nice body." He also told her that "18" was a special age and if

she were 18 years old, things would be different. He added that

her parents were "too strict." These highly inappropriate

comments were especially egregious in nature, given the fact that

O.G. was a minor with mental health and substance abuse issues,

and she was living in the licensee's family home. One photograph

of O.G. taken in the home shows Mr. Torres standing in the

background donned in h is pajamas. Resp . Ex. 16. These actions

constitute a violation of section 397.415(1)(d)2., which makes it

unlawful to commit an intentional or negligent act materially

affecting the health or safety of an individual receiving

services from the provider.

18. Mr. Torres o ccasionally escorted O.G. to two local bars

(Miller's Ale House and Marrakesh Hooka Lounge) in Champions

Gate. On one visit to Miller's Ale House in April or May 2017,

he purchased her a Blue Moon beer , even though she was a minor

and in a substance abuse program. She consumed the beer in his

presence while the two sat at the bar. Although Mr. Torres

attempted (through argument) to deny the incident, O.G. filmed

the event on her cell phone. Resp. Ex. 13. This action by him

also constitutes a violation of section 397.415(1)(d)2.

Petitioner argues in its PRO that the whole incident was a

fabrication and the result of a conspiracy by O.G.'s father, the

Tampa Police Department, and Department counsel. The contention

is rejected.

19. When O.G. was dischar ged from the residential treatment

facility in August 2017, Petitioner enrolled her in another

program, IOP, which required her to periodically return to the

facility on weekends for further treatment. Her first return

visit was the weekend of August 26, 2017. During the weekend

visit, the son gave her a cell phone. O.G.'s admission document

for the IOP program indicated she would be given IOP services for

60 to 90 days, with a goal of her being substance free at the end

of that period. Resp. Ex. 24. T here is no record of her being

discharged from the program.

20. The Department argues in its PRO that by providing IOP

services to O.G., Petitioner was providing a service beyond the

scope of its license. However, this allegation was not included

in th e amended charging document and has not been considered.

See, e.g. , Trevisani v. Dep't of Health , 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109

(Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(a licensee may not be disciplined for an

offense not charged in the complaint).

21. After being discharged from her original treatment plan

on August 14, 2017, O.G. returned to her mother's home. Except

for one weekend visit to Petitioner's facility for IOP services,

she remained at home until September 16, 2017. That day, O.G.

ran away from home with Preston, a r esident she had met at

Petitioner's facility. After leaving home, she went to

Melbourne, and then to West Palm Beach. A Missing/Endangered

Runaway Juvenile bulletin was posted by law enforcement on

October 5, 2017. Resp. Ex. 11. During this period of t ime,

PetitionerÓs records show that O.G. was still enrolled in the

unlicensed IOP program. Resp. Ex. 24.

22. While in the West Palm Beach area, O.G. contacted the

son on the cell phone he had given her and told him she had run

away from home. She asked him to send her some money so that she

could go to Tampa to work in a strip club. Because O.G. was not

old enough to accept a wire money transfer, the son wired $600.00

to a friend of O.G., who gave her the money.

23. Using the money provided by the so n, O.G. traveled to

Tampa and met the son on September 30, 2017. The two went to

Todd Couples Superstore, where he purchased several adult

entertainment outfits she could wear to audition for a job in a

strip club. Resp. Ex. 12. He also purchased her va rious

personal items at a Walgreens.

24. The son then drove her to several clubs to audition for

a job. After several auditions, she was hired by Scores Tampa, a

local strip joint where "people take off their clothes for

money." O.G., who was only 17 years old at the time, signed an

employment contract on September 30, 2017, using a borrowed

driver's license of S.F., a 21 - year - old female. Resp. Ex. 15.

S.F. was a former intern at Petitioner's facility and is listed

as a member of the team staff on O. G.'s initial treatment plan.

By that time, S.F. had left Petitioner ' s facility and moved back

to Tampa.

25. That same evening, O.G. began working in Scores Tampa.

O.G. says she took off her clothes while performing. The son

remained in the club while s he worked. After she got off work at

2:00 a.m., he drove her to S.F. ' s house. O.G. continued working

at the club for the next few days. With the assistance of local

law enforcement, O.G. returned to her mother ' s home on October 7,

2017.

26. After she r an away from home, and even while working in

the club, O.G. maintained contact with Mr. Torres through texts

and Facetime and asked him not to report her whereabouts to

anyone. Although O.G.'s mother spoke to Mr. Torres on several

occasions after O.G. wen t missing in September 2017, neither

Mr. Torres nor the son informed her of the daughter's

whereabouts.

27. On November 30, 2017, the Department received a report

of alleged human trafficking and sexual exploitation of a child.

The alleged perpetrator was the son, while the victim was

identified as O.G. Because the son was an employee of

Petitioner, an institutional investigation was conducted. The

investigation was closed on December 26, 2017, with a confirmed

report of Human Trafficking - Commercial Exploitation of a Child

against the son. Resp. Ex. 17. During the investigation,

Mr. Torres and members of his family declined to be interviewed

or answer any questions. Instead, they referred all questions to

their attorney.

28. On February 6, 2018 , the Department received another

report of abuse involving Mr. Torres. The report alleged that in

April or May 2017, Mr. Torres transported O.G. to a bar at

Miller's Ale House in " Davenport " [ sic ] and purchased her a beer.

After an institutional investi gation, the file was closed on

March 1, 2018, as verified for Substance Misuse Î Alcohol against

Mr. Torres. Resp. Ex. 18. See also Finding of Fact 18.

Mr. Torres declined to participate in the investigation.

29. By clear and convincing evidence, the Department

established that the actions of Mr. Torres and his son presented

a threat to the health or safety of O.G. in contravention of

section 397.415(1)(d)2.

iii. Count IV

30. J.W., who did not testify, is a 42 - year - old male who

was discharged from a hospital on October 9, 2017 (after being

Baker Acted), and admitted to Petitioner's facility the same day

to receive PHP services. He was diagnosed as having mental

health and substance abuse issues and a history of suicidality.

He voluntarily left the facility on November 9, 2017. In its

PRO, Petitioner characterizes J.W. as "a disgruntled addict."

31. While a resident at the facility, J.W. received a few

video sessions with a Miami Springs psychiatrist, who was

identified on the renewal applicatio ns as the facility m edical

d irector, and he was given online counseling sessions for two

weeks by an LMHC, who resided in Palm Bay and worked as an

independent contractor with the facility. Neither professional

was told by Mr. Torres that Petitioner was n ot licensed to

provide PHP services. By providing PHP services to J.W.,

Petitioner violated sections 397.401(1) and 397.415(1)(a)2.c.

32. According to the LMHC, on October 24, 2017, she was

directed by Mr. Torres, who is not a licensed clinician, to

"d ischarge" J.W. from the PHP program and place him in a lower

level of care, Sober Living. Resp. Ex. 25. This would still

allow J.W. to remain a resident at the facility but not receive

the PHP services. Although the charging document alleges that

J.W. d id not wish to be discharged from the PHP program, and this

caused him to have a relapse in his condition and later Baker

Acted again, there is no competent evidence to establish this

string of events.

iv. Count V

33. Section 397.411 requires all license es to provide

Department representatives access to their facilities and to

allow the inspection of pertinent records. Based upon

information from a provider in Jacksonville that Mr. Torres had

requested its assistance in providing PHP services to J.W., th e

Department instituted an investigation of Petitioner. In January

2018, the Department attempted to conduct an onsite inspection of

Petitioner's facilities and to review the files relating to J.W.

The inspectors were denied entry. Thereafter, the Depar tment

sent a written request to Petitioner for the records of J.W. and

O.G. No records were provided and Petitioner failed to respond

to the request. These actions constituted a violation of section

397.411.

34. At hearing, Mr. Torres contended (through argument)

that because the Department had already taken preliminary action

on December 1, 2017, to deny his applications, there was no

requirement that he provide access to the facility or respond to

written requests for records. This assertion has been rejected.

See § 397.411(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (an application for licensure as

a service provider constitutes full permission for an authorized

agent of the department to enter and inspect at any time).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

35. Because the Department seeks to impose a penalty, it

has the burden of proving the alleged violations, and the

propriety of the proposed fine, by clear and convincing evidence.

Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932,

935 (Fla. 1996). If this burden is satisfied , Petitioner must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its applications

should be approved, notwithstanding any violations that are

proven. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. v. Davis Fam. Day Care Home ,

160 So. 3d 854, 857 (Fla. 2015)(Canady, J., disse nting).

36. In this case, notice of specific rules allegedly

violated was not given to the licensee. Therefore, only the

alleged violations based on statutory grounds have been

considered. See, e.g. , United Wis. Life Ins. Co. v. Office of

Ins. Reg. , 8 49 So. 2d 417, 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(where licensee

is not given reasonable notice of the applicability of a

particular rule, a finding of a violation cannot be based on that

rule) . The undersigned has used the clear and convincing

standard in evaluatin g the evidence.

37. The Department is authorized to deny an application for

licensure if it determines that the licensed provider "is not in

compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements."

§ 397.415(1), Fla. Stat.

38. By clear and convinc ing evidence, the Department has

established that Petitioner's applications were not timely filed,

and they were incomplete. §§ 397.407(8) and 397.403(1)(f), Fla.

Stat.

39. By clear and convincing evidence, the Department has

established that Petitione r twice provided substance abuse

services to O.G. from an unlicensed facility (the family home of

Mr. Torres) in violation of section 397.401(1).

40. By clear and convincing evidence, the Department has

established that the actions of Mr. Torres and his son, both

officers of the licensee, presented a threat to the health and

safety of O.G. in violation of section 397.415(1)(a)2.c.

41. By clear and convincing evidence, the Department has

established that Petitioner rendered services "beyond the scope

of [its] license" by providing PHP services to J.W. in violation

of section 397.415(1)(a)2.c.

42. In summary, other than the allegation in Count IV that

Petitioner's actions presented a threat to the health or safety

of J.W., all charges in Counts I through V have been proven. The

evidence clearly and convincingly supports the Department's

denial of the two renewal applications. However, the request to

impose a $2,500.00 administrative fine should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings o f Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families

enter a final order denying the applications for renewal of

Petitioner's two licenses. An administrative fine should not be

imposed.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

D. R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(85 0) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 27th day of September , 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ On June 18, 2018, or seven days before the hearing, Mr. Torres

filed his first set of proposed (but not admitted) E xhibits 1

through 42 and 44 through 83 . Over the next three days, he

submitted revised or supplemental exhibits seven times. In all,

the proposed exhibits comprise hundreds of pages, some numbered,

others identified by ei ther single or multiple letters, and some

on a thumb drive that could not be opened or accessed by the

Clerk's Office. Collectively, they present a daunting task to

assemble in a coherent manner. Mr. Torres says it was necessary

to file them in this mann er because he had inadequate time to

prepare his exhibits after receiving notice of the amended charges

in February 2018, he is not an attorney, and he had to compile

documents to fight charges going all the way back to 2005, when he

operated a facility in Arizona. Although the proposed exhibits

were filed with the Clerk's Office, in most cases they were not

provided to Department counsel until the day of the hearing.

During his examination of Department witnesses, Mr. Torres

referred to a number of his p roposed exhibits. However, the

exhibits actually received in evidence are listed in the

Preliminary Statement. The Department's proposed Exhibits 1

through 20 were pre - filed on April 2, 2018, while Exhibits 22

through 24 were filed on May 11 and June 14, 2018. Exhibits 25

through 27 are three depositions taken in May 2018, and in which

both parties participated. Although Mr. Torres argued that he did

not receive all of the Department ' s pre - filed exhibits, they were

sent to him by Federal Express or emai l .

2/ Department Exhibit 24, an admission document for resident O.G.

to an Intensive Outpatient Program dated August 22, 2017, was

inadvertently referred to as Exhibit 26 in the record.

3/ For the sake of efficiency, Petitioner's m otion was granted at

hearing, subject to the undersigned determining which, if any, of

the statutes and regulations were relevant to these cases. Very

few statutes and regulations, if any, have any relevance to the

issues, as they were not used as a basis to deny the applicat ions.

For example, the m otion cites numerous Arizona administrative

regulations that were in effect "up until 2012," and various

Arizona statutes, presumably for the purpose of allowing

Mr. Torres to relitigate in this proceeding two adverse rulings

rend ered against him by an Arizona Superior Court in 2005 and

2012, when he operated a facility in that state. See Resp. Ex. 7

and 8.

4/ A more comprehensive description of Level 2 residential

programs is found in Florida Administrative Code R ule 65D -

30.0 07(2)(b).

5/ According to a Department witness, an individual receiving

PHP services is provided eight hours of services each day, five

days per week. An individual receiving IOP services is provided

three hours of services each day, three days per w eek.

6/ Prior to the hearing, Mr. Torres arranged a video telephone

conference call with a representative of an Arizona company that

created the software for PLADS. However, he failed to provide

notice to Department counsel so that counsel could partici pate.

His request to have the videotape accepted in evidence was

denied.

COPIES FURNISHED:

T. Shane DeBoard, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

Suite S - 1129

400 West Robinson Street

Orlando, Florida 32801

(eServed)

Lacey Kantor, Esquire

Depa rtment of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 204Z

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(eServed)

Roberto Torres, Jr.

8297 Champions Gate Boulevard

Champions Gate, Florida 33896

(eServed)

Takisha Richardson, Esquire

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Suite 200

2925 PGA Boulevard

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410

(eServed)

John Jackson, Acting General Counsel

Department of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 204F

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(e S erv ed)

Rebecca Kapusta, Interim Secretary

Department of Children and Fami lie s

Building 1, Room 202

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

(e S erved)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written excepti ons 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.