DOROTHY COKE, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Department had sufficient grounds to deny license renewal based on the unexplained injury to a child in the care provider's supervision.
A family day care provider applied for license renewal, but the Department denied it due to an unexplained injury to a child in her care. The provider…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Coke appeals from a final order rendered by the Department of Children and Family Services, which denied her application for renewal of her family day care license. The Department agrees that in this proceeding it had the burden of proving her lack of entitlement to a renewal of her license and that the evidence needed to be clear and convincing. Dept. of Banking and Finance, Div. of Securities and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern and Co., 670 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla.1996); Dubin v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 262 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
Coke argues there was insufficient substantial evidence in this proceeding presented by the Department to show the injury suffered by a child in her day care center occurred while the child was in her care and under her supervision. The hearing officer so found, but the Department ruled otherwise. We do not think this is a redetermi- nation of fact issues, but rather a legal determination by a reviewing body, a task this appellate court is called upon to undertake frequently.1
In this case, there was no competent substantial evidence to suggest the child in this case came to the day care center after being injured or that it was injured after leaving the center. It logically follows that the child was injured at the day care center. The combination of the child’s injury and the lack of explanation on the part of the care giver as to how it occurred, constitute sufficient grounds to conclude Coke did not provide adequate care and supervision for the child entrusted to her care.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 420 (Fla.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 2926, 53 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1977) (appellate court's only function is to determine sufficiency of evidence as a matter of law).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis Family DAY Care Home v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 117 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…rd of proof with respect to a contested denial of the family day care renewal application and [to] the denial of the large family day care application is by clear and convincing evidence,” relying on Coke v. Department of Children & Family Services, 704 So. 2d 726, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). The ALJ went on to find that where, as here, DCF proposed to deny a license based on specific statutory or rule violations, DCF bears the burden of proof. The statutory and rule violations forming the basis of DCF’s propose…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996)
- Dalton Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 431 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1977)
- Bolden v. United States, 431 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1977)
- Marve Alan Dubin v. Dep't OF Bus. Reg. of the State of Fla., 262 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)