20-000149 Laura&Apos;S Learning And Enrichment Center vs. Department Of Children And Families Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, April 19, 2021.

Summary: DCF did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that child care center owner observed her daughter "tasing" and pepper spraying owner's adopted son without acting or reporting. Background screening provides information to judge "good moral character."

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

L AURA ' S L EARNING A ND E NRICHMENT

C ENTER ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 20 - 0149

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN A ND

F AMILIES ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

Administrative Law Judge John D. C. Newton, II, of the Division of

Administrative Hearings ( DOAH ) heard this case by Zoom conference on

February 2 and 3, 2021.

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: H annah George, Esquire

Law Firm of Gil Colon, Jr.

325 East Davidson Street

Bartow, Florida 33830

For Respondent: R aquel Ramos, Esquire

Department of Children and Families

1055 U.S. Highway 17 North

Bartow, Florida 33830

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Did Respondent, Department of Children and Families (Department),

correctly deny the application of Petitioner, Laura's Learning and

Enrichment Center (Laura's Learning) , for licensure renewal for failure to

meet the minimum licensing standards for child care facilities?

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On November 21, 2019, Laura's Learning applied to renew its child care

facility license. By letter dated December 3, 2019, the Depar tment announced

its intent to deny renewal. Laura's Learning contested that action. On

January 15, 2020, the Department referred the dispute to DOAH for conduct

of a hearing to resolve the disputed facts. The undersigned scheduled the

hearing to begin Marc h 11, 2020. After six uncontested continuances for good

cause which includ ed coordination of a minor's deposition in a related

criminal case and obtention of counsel by Laura's Learning , the final hearing

was scheduled for and conducted on February 2 and 3 , 2021.

Department Exhibits A through K were accepted into evidence. The

Department presented the testimony of Ruth McConnell - Bailey, Nancy

Ebrahimi, James Lewis, Thia Lomax, Heather Recchia, Shada Tobie, and

Erik D. Riks. Laura's Learning Exhibits A through D were accepted into

evidence. Dr. Jeffery Johnson, Antonio Miles, Jayda Miles, Chaundi Parham,

and Laura Smith testified on behalf of Laura's Learning. A Transcript of the

hearing was filed on March 22, 2021. The parties timely filed proposed

reco mmended orders. They have been considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. The Legislature has charged the Department with regulating and

licensing child care facilities.

2. Laura Smith owns and operates Laura's Learning in Lake Wales ,

Florida . Since 2009, the Department has licensed Laura's Learning as a child

care facility. The charges involved in this proceeding are the first time that

the Department has acted against Laura's Learning's license. Ms. Smith

submitted an a mended application to renew her lice n se on November 21,

2019. The Department proposes to deny renewal of the license because

Ms. Smith failed, the Department asserts, to protect her adopted son, B.S. ,

from bizarre punishment and resulting physical and emot ional harm. It also

alleges that Ms. Smith failed to provide a required update to her renewal

application.

3. In its case number 2019 - 197752 - 01 , the Department made a verified

finding of abuse by Ms. Smith of B.S., her adopted son, by fail ing to protect

him from bizarre punishment and physical injury. Because of this, the

Department revoked Ms. Smith's license to operate a family foster home.

However, Ms. Smith did not oppose revocation and wished to surrender her

license. Ms. Smith did not amend her appl ication to advise the Department

that it had revoked her foster home license. Ms. Nancy Ebrahimi learned of

th e verified finding and license revocation during her routine review of

Department registries during the license renewal process.

4. August 7, 201 9, after a shelter hearing in which Ms. Smith said that

she did not want B.S. in her home any longer, the court ordered that B.S. be

placed in the shelter custody of the Department. An August 8, 2019, Shelter

Order at Review continued this placement. On Se ptember 18, 2019, the court

granted the Department's Petition for Termination of Parental Rights of B.S.

This decision included consideration of the fact that Ms. Smith signed an

Affidavit and Acknowledgment of Surrender, Consent to Termination of

Parental Rights, and Waiver of Notice form before the Department filed its

Termination of Parental Rights Petition .

5 . Ms. Smith's relationship with B.S. began when she served as his foster

parent. She adopted him when he was about seven (born March 11, 2005).

B.S. lived in Ms. Smith's home in Lake Wales, Florida. He occasionally

helped with chores, such as yardwork , at Laura's Learning. He was also

responsible for chores at home.

6 . Ms. Smith had other children, including an adult biological daughter,

Jayda Miles, who, at the times involved here, lived in Cocoa Beach , Florida,

and visited Ms. Smith's home regularly, often with her husband, Antonio

Miles. Mr. and Ms. Miles lived on Patrick Air Force Base because of his

service in the Air Force . Another adult s ibling, Chaundi Parham , lived at

Ms. Smith's home and worked sometimes at Laura's Learning.

7 . Young twins who were Ms. Smith's foster children lived in the home

with a third foster child.

8 . On June 17, 2019, B.S. was doing yardwork at Laura's Learning.

Ms. Parham was overseeing him. B.S. could not complete mowing because the

mower was flooding. Ms. Parham directed him to sit on a bench and wait for

Ms. Smith to arrive. B.S. removed a bag of Cheetos from the back pack of the

twins, who were also at Laura' s Learning. Ms. Parham caught him eating the

Cheetos in the bathroom. She scolded him and called Ms. Smith. Ms. Parham

was unable to reach Ms. Smith, so she called her older sister, Ms. Miles.

Ms. Parham then told B.S. to sit on a bench to await Ms. Smith. B.S. jumped

the fence surrounding the child care center and ran away. B.S. w as 14 years

old at the time. Ms. Parham reported B.S. as a runaway.

9. During the preceding year, B.S. had started regularly having trouble at

school. He frequently got in fights.

10 . Lake Wales police officer, Edgar Claros, responded to the report of B.S.

running away . On June 18, 2019, Ms. Smith reported to the police that B.S.

had returned home. She also reported that he said he wanted to liv e o n the

street s and left home again. B.S. had run away two or three times before.

1 1 . The Department assigned Ms. McConnell - Bailey to investigate. On

June 18, 2021, Ms. McConnell - Bailey visited Ms. Smith to question her about

the runaway report. She also questioned Ms. Smith about reports from an

unidentified source, possibly a caller to the Department's abuse line, about

maltreatment of B.S. including use of a " taser 1 " , striking him with various

1 "Taser " is a brand name for a stun gun and likely not the brand involved here . The device

was a stun gun that required contact of its electrode pr ongs with the subject 's skin, called

"drive tasing." There is no evidence that any of the tasing involved darts. "Taser" and "tase"

are used in this Order because that is the description the witnesses used.

objects including a wooden spoon, and making him sleep in the garage and

laundry room.

1 2 . Ms. Smith was visibly angry. She denied the allegations and said B.S.

was not going to ruin her business and take everything she had worked so

hard for. She said B.S. was lying and that she had no idea where he wa s,

except that some people told her he was somewhere in the neighborhood of a

Publix. Ms. Smith did not express concern for B.S. 's well - being. She did tell

Ms. McConnell - Bailey that she had removed all pictures of B.S. from displays

of family photographs b ecause they upset her .

1 3 . Ms. Smith began crying during the interview. She said the situation

upset her and was causing her to get sick. She said she felt she was too old

for th e troubles B.S. caused and she did not want to deal with him anymore .

1 4 . On June 21, 2019, Ms. Smith called Detective James Lewis and

advised him she had heard that B.S. was near the area of G. Street and

Lincoln Avenue. Ms. Smith told Detective Lewis that she hoped the officers

did not find B.S. and that he keeps running. Ms. Smith also said B.S. had

been lying about her family, specifically her daughter , Jayda, falsely claiming

abuse. And she said she wanted to file for an injunction against him.

Ms. Smith did not express or display any concern for B.S.

1 5 . Ms. Smith , however, told Detective Lewis that she was going to the

area where B.S. might be, but that he would run from her. Detective Lewis

passed th e information about B.S.'s location on to Officer Eric Ricks, who

located B.S. in the area.

1 6 . Officer Ricks located B.S., picked him up, and spoke with him. Officer

Ricks asked B.S. why he ran away and did not want to return home. B.S. told

Officer Ricks that his sister, Ms. Miles , tased him and pepper sprayed him on

June 16 in the presence of Ms. Smith, Mr. Miles, and Ms. Parham. B.S.

indicated that it was because he had tried to steal something to eat. B.S. was

apprehensive about returning to Ms. Smith's home. B.S. appeared to be on

the verge of tears. B.S. did not say anything about being tased earlier in the

year, around Memorial Day, on the patio.

1 7 . Officer Ricks transported B.S. to the police station where Detective

Lewis assumed responsibility for the investigation. Detective Lewis

interviewed B.S. with Child Protective Investigator Ruth McConnell - Bailey,

for forty - five minutes to an hour , the night of June 21 , 2019 . B.S. told

Detective Lewis that Ms. Miles had repeatedly tased him on his left chest

area and on his upper left arm and sprayed him with pepper spray on

June 16, 2019. He said this was because he had been caught preparing to

steal a honeybun. This , he said , was the reason he ran away and did not want

to return. B.S. did not say anything about being tased earlier in the year,

around Memorial Day, on the patio.

1 8 . Detective Lewis inspected B.S.'s chest and left arm. He found injuries

and scabs that he thought were consistent with the injuries made by a taser.

The pain from tasing that B.S. described was consistent with the pain

Detective Lewis experienced when he wa s tased d uring training. Detective

Lewis did not measure the distance between scabs or other injuries to

determine if they corresponded with the typical separation of the prongs of a

taser. B.S. also told Detective Lewis that he was wearing snowman pajamas

the night of June 16.

1 9 . After the interview , Detective Lewis and Ms. McConnell - Bailey

transported B.S. to the home of Cheryl Jennings who had agreed to provide

him lodging. B.S. was happy to be taken there instead of Ms. Smith's home.

B.S. said that he felt unsafe at M s. Smith's home.

20 . Detective Lewis and Ms. McConnell - Bailey then went to Ms. Smith's

home to obtain clothes for B.S. and to obtain the snowman pajamas. The

pajamas had been washed, dried, and folded. Detective Lewis examined the

pajamas . He identified one small burn hole on the chest area of the pajamas.

He thought the hole was consistent with use of a taser with its prongs placed

directly on the person being tased. Although B.S. claimed he had been

repeatedly tased on his left chest and left arm, the pajamas had only one

possible burn hole.

2 1 . A few days later, Detective Lewis interviewed Ms. Miles. She denied

the claims of B.S. She also allowed Detective Lewis to search her car. He did

not find a taser or pepper spray.

2 2 . On June 25, 2 019, Th ia Lomax, Children's Home Society Children's

Advocacy Center Case Coordinator, Child Protection Team, interviewed B.S.

Ms. Lomax is a trained and experienced forensic interview er . Ms. Lomax

noticed marks on B.S.'s neck. He told her they were from a recent fight.

2 3 . Ms. Lomax interviewed B.S. for about an hour . The record contains a

video recording of the interview. The interview is neutral and undirected.

Ms. Lomax does not suggest or imply responses by her questions or body

language. However, Ms. Lomax also does not test or challenge B. S .'s

statements. B. S . basically made the same report about events the night of

June 16 as he m ade earlier to Detective Lewis . He also made a new claim

that Ms. Miles tased him on the patio earlier in the year, around Memorial

Day , in the presence of Ms. Smith and Ms. Parham . His description did not

identify a number of tasings or how long the experience lasted. B.S. also

made claims about being struck by a broom and a spoon and made to " work

like a slave. "

2 4 . O n August 6, 2020, the parties deposed B.S. A transcript of the

deposition is also part of the record. B.S. did not testify at the hearing. B.S.'s

deposition testimony differed from the interviews. B.S. demonstrated

confusion and changed the details of his reports.

2 5 . The evidence about the initial events of the night of Sunday, June 16,

2019, is consistent. Mr. and Ms. Miles were spending that night at

Ms. Smith's home.

2 6 . On June 16 Ms. Smith took B.S. to Walmart sometime after midnight

to buy a Sprite. Antonio Miles was at the Walmart, having arrived

separately. He observed B.S. preparing to steal a honey bun. When B.S. saw

Mr. Miles watching him, he abandoned his plan to steal a honey bun.

2 7 . Afterwards B.S. returned home with Ms. Smith and went to bed,

wearing pajamas with snowmen on them. When Mr. Miles returned to the

home, he t old Ms. Smith about the honey bun. Ms. Smith called B.S. into the

family room. From this point forward, the evidence and the testimony of the

witnesses differs significantly.

2 8 . According to Ms. Smith, Ms. Miles, and Mr. Miles , Ms. Smith called

B.S. into the family room and asked him about the honey bun incident. He

told her he w as just looking at the pastry. The y further testified that

Ms. Smith talked to B.S. about "making bad choices" and sent him back to

bed. Ms. Smith, Ms. Miles, Ms. Parham, and Mr. Miles all testified that

Ms. Parham was not present because she was with frie nds in Orlando.

Mr. Miles, Ms. Miles, and Ms. Smith are adamant that Ms. Miles did not tase

or pepper spray B.S. They also agree that Ms. Parham was not present

during the conversation with B.S. about the honey bun because she was in

Orlando. And they agre e he was not made to sleep in the laundry room.

2 9 . According to B.S., when Ms. Smith called him from his room, all the

adults, including Ms. Parham, were present in the family room. He says that

when he denied preparing to steal the honey bun, Ms. Smith s tated, "No you

are lying."

30 . In his interviews, B.S. stated that Ms. Miles went to her car and

returned with a pink can of pepper spray and a pink "taser" and began tasing

him. He said that Ms. Miles tased him five or six times on his upper left arm

and the left side of his chest. The taser got tangled in his pajamas he said .

Then Ms. Miles began spraying him with pepper spray. According to B.S.'s

statements, the adults sent him outside to wash the pepper s pray from his

face. He then went to bed in the laundry room. He said that Ms. Smith did

not intervene.

3 1 . In deposition, subject to cross examination, B.S. amplified and

expanded his claims to the point of incredulity. For instance, in his

interviews he s aid Ms. Miles had tased him five or six times the night of

June 16. In his deposition testimony, B.S. testified "they were tasing me all

over the house." (R. Ex. K, p. 52). He also testified that the tasing went on for

two or three hours. He volunteered th at Ms. Miles tased him 50 times. He

also said that it could have been 100 times. He said his pajamas had 50,

maybe 100 holes from the tasing. (R. Ex. K, p. 52). These claims differ

significantly from those made in his interview s. Detective Lewis found only

one hole that he thought could have been caused by a taser.

3 2 . According to B.S., Ms. Smith did not attempt to intervene to stop

Ms. Miles. She also did not report the alleged incident to law enforcement.

3 3 . Ms. Miles, Mr. Miles, and Ms. Smith all fir mly denied the allegations

of tasing and pepper spraying the night of June 16 .

3 4 . During the videotaped interview , B.S. first claimed that Ms. Miles

tased him three or four times when on the patio Memorial Day . He did not

mention this in his earlier interviews. His deposition testimony about tasing

on the patio w as very different from his interview statements .

3 5 . He testified that Ms. Miles tased h is entire chest and stomach up to

his neck Memorial Day . He sai d Ms. Smith was on the patio and Ms. Parham

was sitting on a couch inside looking out. At first , he said Ms. Miles tased

him 20 times. He went on to say it was more than 20 , maybe 50 or 100 times.

He said the Memorial Day tasing lasted from about 6:00 p . m. t o 11:00 p.m.

He also testified that Ms. Smith and Ms. Miles stayed on the patio the entire

time. Ms. Parham, he said , stayed s itting on the couch watching the entire

time. Nobody took a break, went to the restroom, or got something to drink ,

according to B.S.'s testimony .

3 6 . Ms. Miles, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Parham all credibly deny this account.

In addition , the claims are implausible because of the varying numbers of

tasings claimed and the length of time B.S. said the tasings went on , as well

as nobo dy leaving the patio for five hours.

3 7 . In the course of the interviews and his deposition, B.S. made claims of

being hit by a broom, hit by a spoon, made to sleep in the garage, and made

to sleep in the laundry room. Ms. Smith denied these allegations. T hey are

not corroborated. The evidence to support these claims is not clear and

convincing.

3 8 . B.S.'s shifting version of events, the firm, convincing denials of all

other witnesses, and the inconsistency of only one burn on the pajamas from

four to six tasings, let alone 50 to 100 , keep the evidence of the tasing and

pepper spraying from being clear and convincing.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof

39 . Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2020), grant DOAH

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. 2

40 . The Department must prove its charges by clear and convincing

evidence. See, e.g., Cristal Palace Resort PB, LLC v. Ag. for Health Care

Admin. , Case No. 19 - 1667 (Fla. DOAH M ar. 17, 2020), modified in part ,

AHCA No. 2019000548 (AHCA May 5, 2020), appeal docket ed , No. 5D20 - 1168

(Fla. 5 th DCA May 15, 2020), ¶ ¶ 222 - 226.

41 . The opinion in Evans Packing Company v. Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services , 550 So. 2d 112, 116 n.5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989),

described clear and convincing evidence as follows:

[ C ] lear and convincing evidence requires that the

evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly

remember ed; the evidence must be precise and

explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in

confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must

be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the

2 All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification unless noted otherwise.

trier of fact the firm belief of conviction, without

hesitancy, a s to the truth of the allegations sought

to be established. Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d

797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

4 2 . In disciplinary proceedings, the statutes and rules for which a

violation is alleged must be strictly construed in favor of a respondent.

Elmariah v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg. , 574 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Taylor v.

Dep't of Prof'l Reg. , 534 So. 2d 782 , 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Also, an agency

may not take penal action based on legal or factual matters not specifically

alleged. See Trevisani v. Dep't of Health , 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA

2005).

Elements

4 3 . Sections 402.301 through 402.319 , Flo rida Statutes, establish general

guidelines for Department regulation of child care facilities. Section 402.310

empowers the Department to administer disciplinary sanctions, up to and

including license revocation or denial.

4 4 . The Department maintains that Ms. Smith does not meet the good

moral character requirement of section 402.305 (2)(a) because she failed to

protect her adopted son, B.S, from bizarre punishment and physical and

emotional harm. Specifically, the Department's Amended Notice of Denial

charges that Ms. Smith did not "maintain good moral character based upon

(R. Ex. A, ¶4). The Department

further intends to deny renewal of the license of Laura's Learning because

Ms. Smith did not amend her p ending application for license renewal when

her foster care license was revoked.

Good Moral Character

4 5 . Section 402.302(15) de scri bes screening as follows :

" Screening " means the act of assessing the

background of child care personnel, in accordance

with state and federal law, and volunteers and

includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Employment history checks, including

documented attempts to contact each employer that

emp loyed the applicant within the preceding 5 years

and documentation of the findings.

(b) A search of the criminal history records, sexual

predator and sexual offender registry, and child

abuse and neglect registry of any state in which the

applicant reside d during the preceding 5 years.

4 6 . Section 402.308(3)(d) prohibits issuing or renewing a facility license "if

any of the child care personnel at the applicant facility have failed the

screening required by ss. 402.305(2) and 402.3055." "Child care person nel"

includes owners, operators, employees, and volunteers working in a child care

facility. § 402.302(3), Fla. Stat. Ms. Smith is child care personnel.

4 7 . Section 402.305 establishes minimum standards for child care

personnel. Section 402.305(2)(a) requ ires demonstration of "[g]ood moral

character ' based upon ' screening as defined in section 402.302(15)." The

section further requires that :

[t]his screening shall be conducted as provided in

chapter 435, using the level 2 standards for

screening set forth in that chapter, and include

employment history checks, a search of criminal

history records, sexual predator and sexual offender

registries , and child abuse and neglect registry of

any state in which the current or prospective child

care personnel resided during the preceding 5 years.

48 . The law do es not state that the screening statute defines "good moral

character." It states that the determination of "good moral character" shall be

" based up on " the screening. In other words, the screening provides the

i nformation for making the "good moral characte r" determination.

49 . Sections 402.301 through 402.319 do not define "good moral

character." 3 Nor do the Department's rules. Here the parties plainly agree

3 The Legislature has defined "good moral character" in other chapters. The definitions all

use the words " means a personal history of honesty, fairness, and respect f or the rights of

that if Ms. Smith observed Ms. Miles tase and pepper spray B.S. and did

nothing to protect him or report the acts, that inaction would establish that

she lacked the required good moral character. There is, therefore, no need for

an extended consideration of the meaning of "good moral character."

50 . Section 435.04 , Florida Statutes, establishes Level 2 screening

standards. This statute says that background investigations must ensure:

that no persons subject to the provisions of this

section have been arrested for and are awaiting final

disposition of, have been found guilty of, regardless

of adjudicatio n, or entered a plea of nolo contendere

or guilty to, or have been adjudicated delinquent and

the record has not been sealed or expunged for, any

offense prohibited under any of the following [52]

provisions of state law or similar law of another

jurisdict ion[.]

51 . The evidence did not prove Ms. Smith ha s been arrested for, ha s been

found guilty of, entered a plea of nolo contendere , or entered a plea of guilty

to any of the listed provisions.

52 . Clear and convincing evidence di d not prove that Ms. Smith observed

Ms. Miles tase and pepper spray B.S. and took no action. Therefore, clear and

convincing evidence did not prove that Ms. Smith lacked the required "good

moral character."

Application Amendment

53 . Section 402.3055 creates child care personnel requirements. Section

402.3055(1)(a) requires the Department to include an application question

asking: "the applicant, owner, or operator if he or she has ever had a license

denied, revoked, or suspended in an y state or jurisdiction or has been the

subject of a disciplinary action or been fined while employed in a child care

facility."

others and for state and federal law. " See §§ 468.8413(4)(a), 489.513(1)(c)1., 468.525(2)(a),

and 473.308(6)(a), Fla. Stat.

54 . Section 402.3055(2)(a) directs the Department to "deny, suspend, or

revoke a license" for failure to comply with the sec tion. The Department

reasons that this statute required Ms. Smith to amend her license renewal

application when the Department revoked her foster care license.

55 . The Department argues that section 402.3055(4) required Ms. Smith

to update her renewal app lication by advising of the revocation of her foster

parent license . There is no section 402.3055(4).

56 . The Department says that by not reporting the revocation of her foster

parent license Ms. Smith violated section 402.3055(1)(a). That section

require s applicants to attest to the accuracy of information provided in the

license application. The information the application solicits includ es whether

an applicant ever had a license revoked in any jurisdiction. Ms. Smith

submitted her amended application fo r renewal on November 21, 2019. The

Department revoked her foster care license December 9, 2019. Thus, when

Ms. Smith submitted her application , her attestation that she had not had a

license revoked, suspended , or otherwise sanctioned was correct. The

Department has not identified a statute or rule requiring an applicant to

update an application.

Conclusion

57 . After repeated and thorough review s of the evidence , the undersigned

cannot reach a "firm belief of co nviction, without hesitancy" that Ms. Miles

committed the acts alleged. There are several reasons. Three are prominent.

One reason is the universal, unwavering denial by all possible witnesses

other than B.S. Recognizing that the number of witnesses does n ot determine

the weight of their testimony , 4 the consistency and certainty of their

testimony still has convincing force. So does their demeanor. The differences

between B.S.'s testimony in deposition and his statements to the police

4 The number of witnesses testifying to a fact does not determine its weight. The convincing

force of the evidence does. S. Fla . Water Mgmt. Dist. v. RLI Live Oak, LLC , 139 So. 3d 869 ,

875, n.1 (Fla. 2014).

officers and Ms. Lomax are another reason. The third reason is that despite

the claimed number of tasings there is only one barely visible hole in the

pajamas.

58 . The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that

Ms. Smith observed Ms. Miles tasing or pepper s praying B. S . Consequently,

it did not prove the charged lack of good moral character.

59 . The Department did not establish that Ms. Smith was required to

amend her application for renewal. Consequently, it did not prove that her

failure to amend the application is grounds for denying renewal.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

recommended that Respondent, Department of Children and Families, enter

a Final Order granting the license renewal application of Petitioner, Laura's

Learning and Enrichment Center.

D ON E A ND E NTERED this 19th day of April , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

J OHN D. C. N EWTON , II

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 19th day of April , 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk Raquel Ramos, Esquire

Department of Children and Families Department of Children and Families

Building 2, Room 204Z 1055 U.S. Highway 17 North

1317 Winewood Boulevard Bartow, Florida 33830

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

Javier A. Enriquez, Esquire

Hannah George, Esquire Department of Children and Families

Law Firm of Gil Colon, Jr. Building 2, Room 204F

325 East Davidson Street 1317 Winewood Boulevard

Bartow, Florida 33830 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Reco mmended

Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

case.