J.D. v. Florida Department of Children & Families, 114 So. 3d 1127

Background

J.D. sought a Section 435.07 exemption from DCF after Level 2 screening flagged a 1988 cocaine conviction and a 1989 child abuse conviction; DCF denied the exemption citing anger-management concerns (including an incident in which she choked her 13-year-old son).
J.D. requested an administrative hearing before an ALJ; the ALJ recommended granting the exemption, finding J.D. rehabilitated based on long-term behavioral improvement, church involvement, stable employment, completion of drug treatment, and education pursuits.
DCF’s final order accepted most factual findings but rejected the ALJ’s findings that J.D. had overcome anger issues and that denial would be arbitrary, instead concluding J.D. still posed a potential danger to vulnerable children and denying the exemption.
The hearing transcript was not filed in the record on appeal, and DCF did not explicitly state that it found the ALJ’s factual findings unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
The court reviewed the agency’s denial under the abuse-of-discretion standard and addressed the proper role of an ALJ under the amended Section 435.07(3)(c).

Issues

Issue	J.D.’s Argument	DCF’s Argument	Held
Proper role of ALJ under §435.07(3)(c)	ALJ should determine whether applicant proved rehabilitation and recommend grant/deny	ALJ should only review reasonableness of agency’s intended action (quasi-appellate)	ALJ must hold a de novo hearing, determine rehabilitation as a factual matter, and evaluate whether agency’s intended action was an abuse of discretion based on that record
Whether ALJ’s rehabilitation findings are binding on agency	ALJ found clear-and-convincing rehabilitation; agency erred to deny	Agency argued it could independently deny despite ALJ finding	ALJ’s factual findings on rehabilitation are findings of fact; agency cannot reject them without stating with particularity that they lack competent substantial evidence (which DCF did not do because transcript was missing)
Whether DCF abused discretion in denying exemption	J.D. argued denial was arbitrary given rehabilitation finding	DCF argued denial was reasonable based on nature of child-abuse conviction and later arrests; agency has discretion even if rehabilitation shown	No abuse of discretion: although DCF erred in rejecting some ALJ factual findings without the required particularized showing, its stated rationale (risk to vulnerable children given child-abuse conviction) was sufficiently particular and within its discretion, so denial affirmed
Effect of missing hearing transcript on review	Favored J.D.: prevents agency from properly rejecting ALJ factual findings	DCF had to justify rejection on record; absence of transcript limited its ability to do so	The missing transcript prevented DCF from meeting statutory requirement to show ALJ findings unsupported; court found error in that rejection but still affirmed final denial on alternative adequate rationale stated by DCF

Key Cases Cited

Heburn v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 772 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (agency denial of exemption reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (definition of abuse of discretion)
B.J. v. Dep’t. of Children & Family Servs., 983 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (ALJ findings of fact/reversal where agency reweighed credibility)
K.J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 974 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (agency may not reject ALJ factual findings without showing lack of competent substantial evidence)
Phillips v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 736 So.2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (even if rehabilitation shown, agency not required to grant exemption)
McDonald v. Dep’t of Banking and Fin., 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (chapter 120 hearings typically formulate final agency action)
State Contracting & Eng’g Corp. v. Dep’t of Transp., 709 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (de novo hearing used to evaluate agency action, not to substitute ALJ for agency)
Gross v. Dep’t of Health, 819 So.2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (determination whether party met burden is factual)
Battaglia Props. v. Fla. Land & Water Adjudicatory Comm’n, 629 So.2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (labels of findings vs conclusions not controlling)