OAH Docket No. 4-1800-11495-2
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
|
In Re: The Revocation of the License of Joe and Delores Arrington 3319 Russell Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55412 To Provide Child Foster Care under Minnesota Rules, parts 9545.5105 to 9545.0445.
|
ORDER |
The Department of Human Services and Hennepin County began this contested case proceeding on November 19, 1997, by issuing and serving a Notice of and Order for Hearing. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge subsequently conducted a hearing in this matter beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 27, 1998, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, Suite 1700, 100 Washington Square Building, 100 Washington Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Duane A. Bartz, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, Suite 1210, Health Services Building, 525 Portland Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415, represented the Department and the County at the hearing. Joe and Delores Arrington appeared on their own behalf at the hearing and were not represented by an attorney.
After hearing the opening statements of the parties, it became clear that the sole basis for the Arringtons’ appeal was a challenge to the County’s earlier finding that they had committed maltreatment of a child. Because of the unsettled state of the law governing appeals from maltreatment determinations, the Administrative Law Judge stayed proceeding temporarily and requested the parties to submit memoranda describing their respective positions on what the appropriate forum should be for the Arringtons to challenge the County’s maltreatment finding. After entering the temporary stay, the Arringtons engaged John M. Gearin, Attorney at Law, 386 North Wabash, Suite 600, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55102-1308, to represent them in this matter.
On June 23, 1998, the Department and the County submitted their memorandum. They took the position that the Administrative Law Judge lacked the authority in this revocation proceeding to overturn the County’s maltreatment finding. Rather, the appropriate way for the Arringtons to challenge that finding was by requesting the Department to begin a contested case proceeding under the Minnesota Data Practices Act[1] to challenge the accuracy and completeness of that finding. By letter dated July 1, 1998, counsel for the Arringtons indicated that he concurred with the position of the Department and the County, and the Administrative Law Judge hereby concludes that statement of the law is correct.
All parties have requested the Administrative Law Judge to stay this license revocation proceeding for a reasonable period of time to allow Mr. and Mrs. Arrington to pursue a separate administrative appeal of the County’s maltreatment finding, and the Administrative Law Judge must now rule on that joint motion for a stay.
In view of the developments described above and for good cause,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. That further proceedings in this contested case proceeding, including resumption of the hearing, are STAYED indefinitely in order to allow Mr. and Mrs. Arrington to pursue a separate administrative appeal of the County’s maltreatment finding;
2. That counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Arrington advise the Administrative Law Judge promptly when they make a decision about whether to pursue a separate administrative appeal; and
3. That if Mr. and Mrs. Arrington do not take steps to initiate an administrative appeal of that maltreatment finding before August 7, 1998, the stay of proceeding shall be dissolved, and counsel for the parties shall make themselves available for a telephonic prehearing conference, to be initiated by the Administrative Law Judge, at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, August 7, 1998, for the purpose of establishing a date on which the hearing shall resume.
Dated this 6th day of July, 1998.
________________________________
BRUCE H. JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge