21-001145PL Richard Corcoran, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Lisa Camacho Szeto Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, July 15, 2021.

Summary: Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 1012.795 by failing to report suspected child abuse to DCF.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

R ICHARD C ORCORAN , A S C OMMISSIONER

OF E DUCATION ,

Petitioner ,

Case No. 21 - 1145PL

vs.

L ISA C AMACHO S ZETO ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in this cause was held in Tallahassee,

Florida, via Zoom video conference on May 12 , 2021, before Linzie F. Bogan,

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

A PPEARANCES

F or Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

For Respondent: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire

Florida Education Association

1516 East Hillcrest Street , Suite 109

Orlando, Florida 32803

S TATE MENT OF T HE I SSUE S

Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes

(2018), as charged in the Administrative Complaint ; and , if so, the penalty

that should be imposed. 1

1 Responden t Ô s alleged conduct occurred in September 2018. The 2018 version of

chapter 1012, and related statutes, was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct, and,

therefore, applies to this proceeding. See Orasan v. Ag. for Health Care Admin ., 668 So. 2d

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On or about February 11, 2021, Petitioner, Ri chard Corcoran, as

Commissioner of Education, issued an Administrative Complaint (Complaint)

charging Respondent, Lisa Camacho Szeto, with having violated section

1012.795(1)(b), and proposing to sanction Respondent Ô s educator Ô s certificate,

pursuant to se ctions 1012.795 and 1012.796. Respondent timely served an

Election of Rights disputing the allegations in the Complaint and requesting

a hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 2 On or about

March 26, 2021, the matter was referred to the Di vision of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH) for a disputed fact hearing.

At the final hearing, Petitioner offered the testimony of student A.C.,

Dr. Suzanne M. Knight, Maria Schmidt - Sutton, Maria Martinez - Rodriguez,

and Tami e Shuster. Respondent testified on h er own behalf and offered the

testimony Melissa J. King - Rolsinelli, and Richard S. Lucero, Jr.

Petitioner Ô s Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 11, and 18 were admitted into evidence.

Petitioner Ô s Exhibits 4 and 18 are on a USB flash drive. Per Petitioner Ô s

request, o ffi cial r ecognition was taken of Petitioner Ô s Exhibits 6 through 10

(pages 18 through 29), as identified by Petitioner Ô s Exhibit List filed on or

about May 6, 2021. Respondent Ô s Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 16, and 17 were also

admitted into evidence.

A one - volume Tra nscript, with a separate word index, was filed at DOAH

on May 28, 2021. Pursuant to joint motion, the deadline for filing proposed

recommended orders was extended to June 30, 2021. Each party timely filed

a proposed order, and the same have been considered in the preparation of

this Recommended Order.

1062, 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)( generally, the law in effect at the time of the alleged

violations applies in disciplinary proceedings).

2 Unless otherwise indicated, all references to chapter 120 are to the 2020 version.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Background

1. Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for

determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action

against an educator Ô s certificate and, i f probable cause is found, for filing and

prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120.

2. Respondent hold s Florida Educator Ô s Certificate 1124072. Respondent Ô s

certificate is valid through June 30, 2024, and covers the areas of educatio nal

leadership, elementary education, English for speakers of other languages

(ESOL), and r eading.

3. During the 2018 - 2019 school year, Respondent was employed as a

reading teacher at Dr. Phillips High School (DPHS) in the Orange County

School District (OC SD). Respondent has been a licensed educator since 1995

and admits to understanding that she is a Ñ mandatory reporter Ò in instances

where a child has been abused or where abuse is suspected.

4. Section 1012.795(1)(b) authorizes the Education Practices Comm ission

to discipline an educator Ñ for knowingly failing to report actual or suspected

child abuse as required in s. 1006.061 or report alleged misconduct by

instructional personnel or school administrators which affects the health,

safety, or welfare of a student as required in s. 1012.796. Ò

5. Section 39.201, Florida Statutes (2018), requires any person who knows

or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused by a person

responsible for the child Ô s welfare to immediately report the knowledge or

suspicion to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hotline.

Several OCSD policies also mandate that a teacher immediately report any

suspected child abuse to the DCF Abuse Hotline.

The Complaint

6. The Complaint alleges that Ñ [o]n or about Se ptember 11, 2018, A.C., an

eleventh[ - ]grade female student, reported to Respondent that [she] was being

physically abused by her mother, [and that] Respondent failed to timely

report the suspected abuse to [DCF] as required by law. Ò

7. As a result of thi s alleged conduct, the Complaint charges Respondent

with having violated section 1012.795(1)(b).

Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing

8. Respondent first met A.C. at or near the beginning of the 2018 - 19

school year, which commenced sometime around the la tter part of August

2018. As to her initial encounter with A.C., Respondent testified as follows:

Q. And when did you first meet A.C.?

A. I believe she may have been absent the first few

days of school, but upon her first day of entry to my

classroom she asked me, when we were greeting

each other at the door, do you know who I am? And

I said, A.C. And she goes, well, do you know about

me? And I said, no, A.C. Hi, nice to meet you.

She goes, well don Ô t you know about my history,

don Ô t you know anything abo ut me? I know your

son and I Ô m in ROTC and, well, DCF used to be

here all the time in ninth and tenth grade, don Ô t

you know anything about me? I thought you would

know all about me.

And I mentioned to her that I knew nothing about

her except her name and her grades and welcome

to my class. And I said, let me show you where

you Ô re sitting this year. And I showed her her seat.

Q. When she said, DCF used to come to school all

the time, what was she talking about?

A. I have no idea. I think she was telling me about

her personal history. Her behavior was a little

flamboyant and very attention seeking and it was

very extroverted, wanting to get to know me on a

personal basis. And I -- it was just a little different

from what I Ô m used to. And but she definitely did

stand out in my vision as somebody that was

seeking attention. (T r. pp . 103 - 1 04) .

Within seconds of meeting A.C., Respondent, by her own admission, thought

of A.C. as an extreme extrovert who was prone to engage in flamboyant and

attention - seeking be havior.

9. On the morning of September 6, 2018, Ms. Shuster included

Respondent on an email that was sent to several individuals regarding A.C.

The email informed recipients of the need to schedule Ñ a team meeting È in

reference to [A.C. Ô s] sporadic attend ance. Ò Respondent, in response to the

email from Ms. Shuster, stated the following with respect to A.C.:

She is extremely bright and multi - lingual. She

mentioned the school had to call DCF (A4) on her

several times last year because her mom is really

mean. The last few absences she had ROTC

commitments. I would check with them to verify.

8/24 was the ROTC field day, 9/5 was the Club

Fair. She probably shouldn Ô t be in reading;

however, she fell asleep on the FSA last year. The

question may be why isn Ô t she g etting enough

sleep? I hope this helps.

10. Although A.C. had only briefly mentioned to Respondent during their

initial interaction that she had encounters with DCF during the previous

school year, it is obvious that A.C. Ô s reference to DCF resonated with

Respondent given that several days later Respondent thought the

information was of such significance that it needed to be included in

Respondent Ô s reply to the email from Ms. Shuster.

11. As of September 6, 2018, Respondent knew that A.C. Ô s school

attend ance was sporadic ; that something in A.C. Ô s life was causing her to not

get enough sleep ; and that A.C. reported having a Ñ really mean mom Ò whose

purported conducted resulted in several visits from DCF during the previous

school year.

September 11, 2018

12 . According to Respondent, prior to the commencement of her fifth

period class on September 11, 2018, she was greeting students at the

doorway of her classroom when A.C. arrived. Because A.C. had recently been

absent from Respondent Ô s class, Respondent ask ed A.C. Ñ where you been. Ò In

response to her question, A.C., according to Respondent, stated that she Ñ got

arrested and I can tell you all about it. Ò Respondent testified that she then

told A.C. to go to her seat and Ñ we can talk about that later. Ò Respond ent

testified that she then instructed A.C. to sit down, but A.C. continued talking

and said to Respondent Ñ I can show you pictures. Ò

13. Respondent then instructed A.C. to Ñ put [her] phone away and sit

down. Ò A.C. complied with Respondent Ô s directive, bu t before doing so

persisted in trying to show Respondent the pictures on her phone.

Respondent said that she was about 20 feet from A.C. when A.C. attempted

to show her the pictures. Because of the distance between her and A.C.,

Respondent testified that s he was unable to discern what was reflected in the

pictures, but she recalled that A.C. said Ñ I can show you pictures, I can show

you, you know, these bite marks. Ò (Pet . Ex . 18, p p . 22 - 23) .

14. Respondent testified that at the conclusion of the fifth perio d class, she

told A.C. to remain in the classroom. According to Respondent, as reflected in

Petitioner Ô s Exhibit 18, pages 18 and 19, the following events then transpired

over a period of about 10 to 15 minutes:

Q. Okay. So now you and A.C. are in the room .

A. Yes.

Q. And you say to A.C. or she says to you, what?

A. I said, hey, A.C., you said you were arrested.

Can you tell me about that? What Ô s going on?

She goes, well, if you really want to know, I wanted

to get it on with my boyfriend and so my mom

didn Ô t like it, we got into it and I called the police

on her and they arrested me.

And I said, oh wow, A.C. I was like, why did they

take you. And she goes, well, the cops said that

they were calling DCF and that they found me --

that I was the one not l istening to my mom.

And I said, well, A.C., I can tell you this. I have a

teenage daughter. She graduated from her e a few

years ago and, I said, I Ô m going to talk to you as a

teacher and I Ô m going to talk to you as a mom.

I said, as a mom, maybe try to p ut your foot in the

other shoe. Maybe your mom doesn Ô t want a little

A.C. running around in nine months. Did you ever

think about that perspective?

And she goes, no. She goes, oh I don Ô t want to have

kids. She goes -- I said, well, are you planning on

goi ng to the military and she said no, I don Ô t want

to do that either. And she goes, I want to do

something in art, graphic arts. Create -- I Ô m very

creative. And I said okay.

Then we spoke about, you know, what else did we

speak about? We spoke about, you k now, trying to

follow house rules so that she doesn Ô t get in this

situation again, whatever. And she goes, yeah,

yeah, I know. She goes, I Ô m over it.

And I said, well, you know, lunch is about to end,

you better hurry on. And so, then she left for lunch

a nd then when she left I called Ms. Graves and I

called Ms. Shuster. I did not get Ms. Shuster. I

didn Ô t leave a message.

Ms. Graves, I left a message. Ms. Graves called me

back sixth period and when I told her, hey, A.C.

reported that she got arrested, wh at Ô s going on, she

goes, oh, every teacher has told me already. We

know. And I said, okay, great, thanks.

15. In addition to the above, Respondent testified that the following events

also occurred during her 10 to 15 - minute discussion with A.C:

Q. During that period, did A.C. show you any

photos?

A. I don Ô t recall having any photo opportunities

except the time that she -- when she was walking

into the room trying to show me the phone from

across the room.

Q. Okay. So, while she is having the conversati on

with you during the lunch period, she didn Ô t try to

show you the photos that she had previously tried

to show you; is that correct?

A. I don Ô t believe so. I remember I asked her about

the photos and stuff like that. She goes, I can show

you photos and I was like, no, I don Ô t want to see

your photos. Because I just didn Ô t.

16. A.C. testified that on September 11, 2018, she reported to

Respondent Ô s class and informed Respondent that she had been abused by

her mother. According to A.C., she showed Respon dent several pictures of

bruising and bite marks on her body , which A.C. attributed to having

resulted from the conduct of her mother. A.C. testified that the images

reflected in Petitioner Ô s Exhibit 4 are copies of the pictures that she showed

Respondent on September 11, 2018.

17. Bates stamped page 9 of Petitioner Ô s Exhibit 4 is an image that clearly

shows bite marks on A.C. Ô s hand. A.C. testified that the bite marks reflected

in this e xhibit were still visible on her hand when she met with Respondent

on September 11, 2018, and that she showed her injured hand to Respondent.

1 8. A.C. could not recall if she showed the pictures to Respondent upon

entering Respondent Ô s classroom or immediately following Respondent Ô s fifth

period class. While A.C. was uncer tain as to when she discussed the details of

her situation with Respondent, her testimony regarding her interaction with

Respondent on September 11, 2018, was without equivocation or hesitancy,

she recounted the events in question with precision, and her t estimony was

not otherwise impeached by Respondent. A.C. was a credible witness, and her

testimony is appropriately credited.

September 13, 2018

19. Thursday, September 13, 2018, was open - house day at DPHS, and

teachers were required to remain at school until 8:00 p.m. At approximately

4:30 p.m., Respondent and her colleague, Ms. Rosa Martinez - Rodriguez, were

conversing in Ms. Martinez - Rodriguez Ô s classroom when the administrative

dean, Ms. Tamie Shuster, appeared in the doorway of the classroom.

Accordin g to Ms. Shuster, she needed to speak with Ms. Martinez - Rodriguez

about ESOL - related matters.

20. Ms. Shuster finished her conversation with Ms. Martinez - Rodriguez,

and before exiting the classroom, she was hailed by Respondent who

informed her that studen t A.C. reported to Respondent that she had been

bitten by her mom, and that A.C. had shown her cellphone pictures of the

bite marks. When asked by Ms. Shuster if she had told anyone else about

A.C. Ô s complaint, Respondent indicated that she had not. Ms. Sh uster

informed Respondent that the incident involving A.C. had to be reported, and

after meeting with Respondent, Ms. Shuster promptly reported the incident

involving A.C. to the DCF Abuse Hotline.

21. In the narrative section of the reporting form complet ed by

Ms. Shuster on September 13, 2018, she noted the following: Ñ The student

[A.C.] reported to her teacher Ms. Camacho Szeto that her mother got mad at

her [and] left bite marks on her. Ò As a follow up, Ms. Shuster, on

September 14, 2018, prepared a wri tten statement outlining the events of the

previous day. In all material respects, Ms. Shuster Ô s written statement on

September 14, 2018, is consistent with her testimony and the information

that she included in the narrative section of the abuse reporting form that

she prepared on September 13, 2018.

22. Ms. Martinez - Rodriguez was in earshot of the conversation between

Respondent and Ms. Shuster and testified to the following:

Q. Okay. And then what did you hear during that

conversation between Ms. Szeto a nd Ms. Shuster?

A. So they were talking about, as I said, a student

that they both seemed to know about. The student

seemed to have a lot of absences. And I heard

Ms. Szeto tell Ms. Shuster that the student had

said that her parent bit her and had shown h er

some pictures on the phone, but that she hadn Ô t

reported anything because she had not observed

bite marks on the student in person, on her person.

And she wasn Ô t sure, also, if it was true as --

because there was a question about whether the

pictures w ere of the student. To my understanding.

Q. Okay. So, it Ô s your testimony that Mrs. Szeto

told Ms. Shuster that she didn Ô t report it to DCF

because she wasn Ô t sure if the student was telling

the truth; is that correct?

A. I Ô m not sure who she was referri ng to as not

reporting it. I Ô m not sure if it was DCF or

administration. That was unclear to me.

But, yes, it was clear that she said that she wasn Ô t

sure if it was true.

Q. Ms. Camacho saying she wasn Ô t sure if it was

true. If what was true?

A. What th e student was alleging that her parent

had bit her and that the marks were actually the

student Ô s. (Tr . p p . 60 - 61)

23. Ms. Martinez - Rodriguez, approximately two weeks after witnessing

the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Shuster, prepared a Ñ witnes s

statement , Ò which reads as follows:

On September 13, 2018, Ms. Camacho - Szeto visited

my office. She remained here for about an hour. It

was Open House day, so we had to be in school

until 8 p.m. We were having a conversation about

personal matters. At so me point during the visit,

Ms. Tamie Shuster stopped by the door.

Ms. Camacho - Szeto informed her that one of her

students was stating that her mom bit her and the

student had shown her pictures of the bite marks

on her phone. I do not recall the name of th e

student, nor if it was an ESOL student.

Ms. Camacho - Szeto stated that she had not

reported anything because she wasn Ô t sure if the

student was saying the truth as she never saw the

bit e marks on the student, only pictures on her

phone and she didn Ô t know if they were really

pictures of her. Ms. Tamie Shuster said she would

investigate and left. Ms. Camacho - Szeto left to get

her meal before Open House began.

24. Respondent, when recalling her conversation with Ms. Shuster on

September 13, 2018, testified as follows:

Q. What did you say to Ms. Shuster?

A. I said, hey, Ms. Shuster, last week you sent an

email about A.C. and regarding the attendance

child -- that you were spearing up the Child Study

Team and I needed to talk to you. I called you the

other da y, but you weren Ô t at your desk.

I said, I have this girl, A.C., she Ô s a little bit, you

know, she Ô s a handful, I said, but I need to tell you,

she told me she was arrested and she said these

things. She Ô s trying to show me a phone from across

the room an d she mentioned some bite marks. I see

no evidence of bite marks.

I see nothing but the behaviors that Ô s exhibited tell

me this child needs some type of counseling or

whateverÈ .

She goes, oh, gee, thanks. Now I have to call it in.

And I said, well, I do n Ô t know, Tamie, I Ô m not -- I

don Ô t see any signs of abuse here whatsoever, she

just said she was arrested, but I don Ô t have her

history. You have her history, you Ô re starting the

Child Study Team.

I said, if I call in a report to DCF, I have nothing to

s how except that she was arrested and they Ô re not

going to take the report È .

* * *

Q. Okay. Now you said you mentioned to

Ms. Shuster that A.C. said something about bite

marks.

A. Yes.

Q. But what did you tell Ms. Shuster about what

A.C. sai d about bite marks?

A. I said, she was trying to show me a cellphone

from across the room of a -- looked like an x - ray

with bite mark -- not bite marks, sorry. Teeth -- like

x - ray teeth. And I said, and I see no evidence here

of any bite marks or anything on this child.

But I was just trying to calm her down and to start

my class and I Ô ve not spoken to her about it

anymore. And I said, could you follow up with her?

(Pet . Ex . 18, p p . 38 - 41).

25. Ms. Shuster and Ms. Martinez - Rodriguez both testified that

R espondent, when speaking with Ms. Shuster on September 11, 2018, stated

that A.C. had been bitten by her mother and had shown Respondent pictures

of the bite marks. Neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez - Rodriguez testified,

nor did they note in their writte n statements, that Respondent stated that

A.C. was Ñ trying to show Respondent pictures from across the room. Ò

Furthermore, neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez - Rodriguez testified that

Respondent mentioned Ñ x - ray like pictures of teeth Ò when discussing A.C .

with Ms. Shuster.

2 6. In addition to the above, Respondent Ô s purported statement to

Ms. Shuster that she had Ñ not spoken to her (A.C.) about it anymore, Ò when

read in context, is in direct conflict with other testimony where Respondent

states that she m et with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after class to discuss with

A.C. the situation involving A.C. and her mother. It is not entirely clear from

the evidence why Respondent would not disclose to Ms. Shuster that she had

met with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes, and thus mislead Ms. Shuster about the

extent of her interaction with A.C. on September 11, 2018.

27. Also, Respondent Ô s testimony that she did not have an opportunity to

review the pictures on A.C. Ô s phone during her after - class meeting with A.C.

is problema tic, and not worthy of belief. While it may have been reasonable

under the circumstances for Respondent to forestall A.C. Ô s attempts to show

Respondent the pictures at the beginning of the class period, it defies logic

and reason that Respondent would meet with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after

class, ask A.C. about the pictures, and then refuse to view them when given

the opportunity to do so.

28. Respondent Ô s evasive, misleading, and inconsistent testimony

undermines her credibility to the point to where he r version of the events in

question cannot be believed.

29 . Dr. Knight is the principal at DPHS and testified that it is not

required that an employee ha ve actual knowledge that a child has been

abused. According to Dr. Knight, employees are trained that , when dealing

with issues of suspected child abuse or neglect, Ñ it Ô s not your job to determine

if you think it Ô s factual or not. You call it in and then DCF is the organization

that determines whether it Ô s factual or not. Your job is to just report it and

they take it from there. Ò Dr. KnightÔs testimony accurately states

RespondentÔs obligation as a Ñmandatory reporter.Ò

Findings of Ultimate Fact

3 0 . On September 11, 2018, A.C., who was then an eleventh - grade

student, reported to Respondent that she had bee n physically abused by her

mother.

3 1 . A.C., when discussing the events with Respondent, presented pictures

of her injuries and also showed Respondent bite marks that were then

present on A.C. Ô s hand.

3 2 . The fact that A.C. verbally informed Respondent that she was abused

by her mother was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent Ô s reporting

obligation to DCF.

3 3 . The fact that A.C. showed Respondent pictures of injuries to her body

was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent Ô s reporting obligat ion to DCF.

3 4 . Although Respondent understood her obligation to report known or

suspected child abuse to DCF, she failed to do so with respect to A.C. Ô s

allegations of abuse.

3 5 . Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by

clear an d convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in the conduct

alleged in the Complaint.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

3 6 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and the parties to,

this proceeding, pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1).

3 7 . This is a proceeding to impose disciplinary sanctions on Respondent Ô s

educator certificate. Because this disciplinary proceeding is penal in nature,

Petitioner is required to prove the allegations in the Complaint by clear and

convincing evidence. Dep Ô t of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670

So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

3 8 . Clear and convincing evidence Ñ requires more proof than a

Ó preponderance of the evidence Ô but less than Ó beyond and to the exclusion of a

reaso nable doubt. ÔÒ In re Graziano , 696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). As stated

by the Florida Supreme Court:

Clear and convincing evidence requires that the

evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly

reme mbered; the testimony must be precise and

lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The

evidence must be of such a weight that it produces

in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegati ons sought to be established.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)(quoting Slomowitz v. Walker ,

429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). Ñ Although this standard of proof

may be met where the evidence is in conflict È it seems to preclude evidence

that is ambiguous. Ò Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros . Inc. , 590 So. 2d

986, 989 (Fla. 1991).

39 . This proceeding is predicated on the allegations set forth in the

Complaint. Due process prohibits Petitioner from taking disciplinary action

based on m atters not specifically alleged in the charging instrument. See

Trevisani v. Dep Ô t of Health , 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005);

Cottrill v. Dep Ô t of Ins. , 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

4 0 . As set forth above, the Complaint charges Res pondent with having

violated section 1012.795(1)(b), which provides, in part, as follows:

(1) The Education Practices Commission may

suspend the educator certificate of any

instructional personnel or school administrator, as

defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3) , for up to 5 years,

thereby denying that person the right to teach or

otherwise be employed by a district school board or

public school in any capacity requiring direct

contact with students for that period of time, after

which the person may return to te aching as

provided in subsection (4); may revoke the educator

certificate of any person, thereby denying that

person the right to teach or otherwise be employed

by a district school board or public school in any

capacity requiring direct contact with stude nts for

up to 10 years, with reinstatement subject to

subsection (4); may permanently revoke the

educator certificate of any person thereby denying

that person the right to teach or otherwise be

employed by a district school board or public school

in any c apacity requiring direct contact with

students; may suspend a person Ô s educator

certificate, upon an order of the court or notice by

the Department of Revenue relating to the

payment of child support; or may impose any other

penalty provided by law, if the person:

* * *

(b) Knowingly failed to report actual or suspected

child abuse as required in s. 1006.061 or report

alleged misconduct by instructional personnel or

school administrators which affects the health,

safety, or welfare of a student as required

in s. 1012.796.

4 1 . Section 1006.061, Florida Statutes (2018), provides, in part, as follows:

Each district school board, charter school, and

private school that accepts scholarship students

who participate in a state scholarship program

under ch apter 1002 shall:

(1) Post in a prominent place in each school a notice

that, pursuant to chapter 39, all employees and

agents of the district school board, charter school,

or private school have an affirmative duty to report

all actual or suspected cases of child abuse,

abandonment, or neglect; have immunity from

liability if they report such cases in good faith; and

have a duty to comply with child protective

investigations and all other provisions of law

relating to child abuse, abandonment, and neglect .

The notice shall also include the statewide toll - free

telephone number of the central abuse hotline.

4 2 . Section 39.201, Florida Statutes (2018), provides, in part, as follows:

(1)(a) Any person who knows, or has reasonable

cause to suspect, that a chi ld is abused, abandoned,

or neglected by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver,

or other person responsible for the child Ô s welfare,

as defined in this chapter, or that a child is in need

of supervision and care and has no parent, legal

custodian, or respon sible adult relative

immediately known and available to provide

supervision and care shall report such knowledge

or suspicion to the department in the manner

prescribed in subsection (2).

* * *

(2)(a) Each report of known or suspected child

abus e, abandonment, or neglect by a parent, legal

custodian, caregiver, or other person responsible for

the child Ô s welfare as defined in this chapter, except

those solely under s. 827.04(3), and each report

that a child is in need of supervision and care and

has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult

relative immediately known and available to

provide supervision and care shall be made

immediately to the department Ô s central abuse

hotline.

4 3 . For the reasons discussed above, it is concluded that Pe titioner proved

by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section

1012.795(1)(b), as charged in the Complaint.

4 4 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B - 11.007 establishes the guidelines

for determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed o n a person who has

committed an act for which the Education Practices Commission may impose

discipline. 3

4 5 . Pursuant to rule 6B - 11.007(2)(b), the penalty for having violated

section 1012.795(1)(b) ranges from probation to revocation of an educator Ô s

certi ficate. Rule 6B - 11.007(3) provides for the consideration of aggravating

and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed.

This rule states, in pertinent part:

The Commission may consider the following as

aggravating or mitigating factors:

(a) The severity of the offense;

(b) The danger to the public;

(c) The number of repetitions of offenses;

(d) The length of time since the violation;

3 The version of rule 6B - 11.007 that was adopted on May 29, 2018, was in effect at the time

of the violations giving rise to this proceeding, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding.

(e) The number of times the educator has been

previously disciplined by the Commission;

( f) The length of time the educator has practiced

and the contribution as an educator;

(g) The actual damage, physical or otherwise,

caused by the violation;

(h) The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed;

(i) The effect of the penalty upon the educator Ô s

livelihood;

(j) Any effort of rehabilitation by the educator;

(k) The actual knowledge of the educator pertaining

to the violation;

(l) Employment status;

(m) Attempts by the educator to correct or stop the

violation or refusal by the educator to co rrect or

stop the violation;

(n) Related violations against the educator in

another state including findings of guilt or

innocence, penalties imposed and penalties served;

(o) Actual negligence of the educator pertaining to

any violation;

(p) Penalties imposed for related offenses under

subsection (2), above;

(q) Pecuniary benefit or self - gain inuring to the

educator;

(r) Degree of physical and mental harm to a

student or a child;

(s) Present status of physical and/or mental

condition contributing to the violation including

recovery from addiction;

(t) Any other relevant mitigating or aggravating

factors under the circumstances.

4 6 . Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent Ô s offense was

severe. As previously noted, Respondent, as of S eptember 6, 2018, knew that

A.C. was an Ñ extremely bright Ò student whose school attendance was

sporadic, that something in A.C. Ô s life was causing her to not get enough

sleep, and that A.C. reported having a Ñ really mean mom Ò whose purported

conducted resu lted in several visits from DCF during the previous school

year. Despite this knowledge, Respondent, based on her incredible testimony,

seemed hyper - focused on A.C. Ô s personality characteristics of being an

extreme extrovert who was prone to engage in flam boyant and attention -

seeking behavior. This likely resulted in Respondent developing a blind spot

towards A.C. , which impaired Respondent Ô s judgment when presented with

information from A.C. suggesting abuse by her mother. Both A.C. and

Respondent are for tunate that no known harm resulted from Respondent Ô s

failure to contact DCF.

4 7 . The above are aggravating circumstances that militate in favor of a

penalty stronger than that suggested by Petitioner in its Proposed

Recommended Order. All relevant factors set forth in rule 6B - 11.007(3) have

been considered by the undersigned in recommending the following penalty.

4 8 . Based on consideration of the relevant factors in rule 6B - 11.007(3), it

is concluded that Petitioner should:

1) Suspend Respondent Ô s educator Ô s certificate for a

period of two days, which corresponds to the

approximately 48 - hour period during which

Respondent failed to take any action with respect

to A.C. Ô s allegations of abuse;

2) Place Respondent Ô s educator Ô s certificate on

probation for two calendar years from the date the

final order is entered in this proceeding, with

conditions determined by the Education Practices

Commission;

3) Require Respondent to attend and successfully

complete, at her expense, training related to her

reporting obl igations under section 1012.795(1)(b);

and,

4) Pay a fine in the amount of $480.00.

R ECOMMENDATION

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

R ECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a f inal o rder

that: 1) sus pends Respondent Ô s educator Ô s certificate for a period of two days;

2) places her educator Ô s certificate on probation for a period of two years from

the date of the f inal o rder, with conditions determined by the Education

Practices Commission; 3) requires Respondent, during her period of

probation, to attend and successfully complete, at her expense, training

related to her reporting obligations under section 1012.795(1)(b); and, 4) pay

a fine in the amount of $480.00.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 15th day of Jul y , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

L INZIE F. B OGAN

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 15 th day of July , 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Florida Education Association Department of Education

Suite 109 Turlington Building, Suite 1244

1516 East Hillcrest Street 325 We st Gaines Street

Orlando, Florida 32803 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Ron Weaver, Esquire Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief

Post Office Box 770088 Office of Professional Practices Services

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088 Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 224 - E

Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive 325 West Gaines Street

Director Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Education Practices Commission

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 316

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBM IT 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 Recommended

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

case.