E.J. v. Department of Children & Families, 219 So. 3d 946

E.J. was convicted of aggravated assault in 2006, completed probation in 2011, and has no other convictions.
She obtained an A.A. in early childhood education and applied for childcare employment but was disqualified due to the 2006 conviction.
In 2015 E.J. applied to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for an exemption from disqualification; DCF denied the application and she requested an administrative hearing.
An ALJ found in April 2016 that E.J. proved rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence and recommended granting the exemption.
While the appeal was pending, § 435.07(4) was amended (effective July 1, 2016) to bar exemptions for current or prospective childcare personnel convicted of enumerated offenses, including aggravated assault.
After the amendment took effect, DOAH issued a Final Order (July 28, 2016) accepting DCF’s exceptions and denying the exemption; the court affirmed, holding the amended statute governs applications pending at decision time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statutory amendment applies to pending exemption applications	The law at time of filing should govern; ALJ found rehabilitation met, so exemption appropriate	Statutory change while application pending applies to final decision and bars exemptions for listed offenses	The amendment applies; DCF was statutorily barred from granting the exemption
Whether DCF must grant an exemption despite statutory bar	E.J. argued equitable/rehabilitation evidence supports granting exemption	DCF argued statute precludes exemptions for enumerated offenses regardless of rehabilitation	Court held statute controls and forecloses exemption regardless of rehabilitation finding
Whether prior convictions before chapter 435's effective date can justify disqualification	E.J. implied earlier conviction should not be disqualifying given rehab and time elapsed	DCF cited precedent upholding disqualification even for convictions predating chapter 435	Court noted precedent upholding disqualification for pre-amendment convictions and construed exemptions narrowly
Whether agency abused its discretion in denying the exemption	E.J. argued denial was arbitrary given ALJ recommendation	DCF argued decision followed statute and was within agency discretion	No abuse of discretion found; court will not substitute its judgment for agency discretion

Lavernia v. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med., 616 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (change in licensure statute during pendency applies to final agency decision)
Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. of Greater Miami, 690 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (agency must apply law in effect at time of final decision)
Sledge v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 861 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (upholding disqualification based on convictions occurring before chapter 435)