A.P. v. Department of Children & Families
230 So. 3d 3
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant A.P., a licensed mental health counselor since 1991, sought an exemption under section 435.07 from a 1998 misdemeanor conviction for exposure of sexual organs (an offense disqualifying work with children/vulnerable adults).
- Appellant applied for the exemption when pursuing to open an intensive outpatient substance-abuse program and to "continue" counseling children and vulnerable adults.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found by clear and convincing evidence that A.P. is rehabilitated and "presents no danger if employed in a position of special trust caring for children or vulnerable adults," and recommended granting the exemption.
- The Secretary of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) adopted the ALJ’s factual findings but rejected the ALJ’s legal conclusion and denied the exemption, stating that even if rehabilitated, the Secretary need not grant an exemption and that reasonable persons could differ.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal held the Secretary abused his discretion by adopting factual findings (including no present danger) but reaching a contrary legal conclusion without adequate, particularized rationale and remanded for a decision consistent with the ALJ or a properly articulated contrary decision.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | DCF's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Secretary properly rejected the ALJ’s recommendation denying an exemption despite adopting the ALJ’s factual findings | The Secretary abused discretion by adopting factual findings (rehabilitation, no present danger) but denying the exemption without explaining why those facts nonetheless support denial | The Secretary may deny an exemption even if rehabilitation is shown; denial is permissible if reasonable persons could differ | Reversed and remanded: adoption of ALJ facts but contrary legal conclusion required a specific, particularized rationale; none was given, so decision was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the Secretary may apply a blanket rule based on the nature of the offense to deny exemptions | A blanket lifetime prohibition conflicts with statute and denies individualized consideration | Denial based on the nature of the offense (and potential exposure to infants/small children) is reasonable | Court held a blanket prohibition is improper; Secretary failed to consider statutory factors and individual circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- J.D. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 114 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (agency must articulate rationale when denying exemption despite showing of rehabilitation)
- K.J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 974 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for exemption decisions)
- B.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 983 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (agency bound by ALJ’s factual findings unless unsupported)
- Cromartie v. State, 70 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 2011) (courts reverse where decisionmakers apply inflexible policies covering statutorily authorized discretion)
- Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., 988 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (due process requires impartial decisionmaker)