|
|
|
|
|
OAH 3-1800-19471-2 |
STATE OF
OFFICE
OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
|
In the Matter of the Order of Conditional License, Order to Forfeit a Fine, and Order of Revocation of the Family Child Care License of Angeleta Bratton |
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION |
This matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Kathleen
D. Sheehy on April 30, 2008, at the
Michael Q. Lynch, Assistant County Attorney,
STATEMENT
OF ISSUES
1. Did the Department properly order the Licensee to pay a fine
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 245A.07, subd. 3 (2006), because she failed to submit
a background study for an adult member of her household and failed to ensure
that a substitute caregiver had completed training on sudden infant death
syndrome and shaken baby syndrome?
2. Did the Department properly place the Licensee’s family child
care license on conditional status for one year pursuant to Minn. Stat. §
245A.06, subd. 1 (2006), because she had violated rules requiring completion of
background studies, operated over capacity and out of ratio, failed to
adequately supervise children in care, allowed a child to provide care to
another child in care, failed to complete required training, and failed to
comply with numerous licensing rules concerning environmental health and
safety?
3. Did the Department properly revoke the Licensee’s family child
care license pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 245A.07, subd. 3 (2006), because she had
failed to comply with the conditional license and continued to operate in
violation of
The Administrative Law Judge concludes the Department’s orders in this matter should be affirmed.
Based upon all of the files, records and proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
On November 2, 2007, the Department sent the Notice and
Order for Hearing on the propriety of the Order of Conditional License and
Order to Forfeit a Fine (dated August 30, 2007) by first-class mail to the
Licensee at
2.
On February 12, 2008, the Department sent the Notice and
Order for Hearing on the propriety of the Order of Revocation (dated December
13, 2007) by first-class mail to the Licensee at
3.
On March 21, 2008, the Licensee failed to appear for the
hearing. A few minutes before the
hearing was to commence, the Licensee telephoned the Assistant County Attorney
to request a continuance because her sister had gone into labor and the
Licensee needed to be with her. At the
Licensee’s request, the Administrative Law Judge rescheduled the hearing to
take place at 9:30 a.m. on April 30, 2008, at the
4.
On April 30,
2008, the Licensee failed to appear for the hearing. The ALJ initiated a conference call that
morning with the Licensee, the Assistant County Attorney, and the County’s
director of Child Care Licensing. During
that conference call, the Licensee stated that she had decided to withdraw her
appeals because she did not intend to provide licensed daycare any longer but
would be returning to school. She
specifically stated that she did not want a continuance, and she did not seek
to reschedule the hearing. The Licensee
agreed to write the ALJ a letter confirming her intent to withdraw her appeals,
but no such letter has been received to date.
5.
The County’s director of Child Care Licensing confirmed
these discussions with the Licensee in a letter dated April 30, 2008. The Licensee did not respond to the letter.
6.
The Notice and Order for Hearing mailed on November 2, 2007,
and on February 12, 2008, contained the following provision:
Failure
to appear at the hearing or prehearing conference will result in the
allegations of the Notice of and order for Hearing, including the incorporated
order, being taken as true. This means
that the action being appealed will be upheld.
7.
The Licensee did not appear at the April 30, 2008, hearing,
and she subsequently informed the ALJ and the Assistant County Attorney that
she wished to withdraw her appeals. She
did not request a continuance or any other relief.
8.
Because Respondent failed to appear for the hearing, she is
in default.
9.
When a party is in default, Minn. R. 1400.6000 (2007)
provides that the allegations contained in the notice of and order for hearing
may be taken as true. The allegations
contained in the Notice and Order for Hearing mailed November 2, 2007, and
February 12, 2008, including the incorporated Orders, are all taken as true and
incorporated by reference into these Findings of Fact.
Based on these Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1.
2.
The Department
gave proper and timely notice of the hearing in this matter and has fulfilled
all procedural requirements of law and rule so that this matter is properly
before the Administrative Law Judge.
3.
Under Minn. R. 1400.6000, a contested case may be decided
adversely to a party who defaults. On
default, the allegations of and the issues set out in that Notice and Order for
Hearing or other pleadings may be taken as true or deemed proved without
further evidence.
4.
The Licensee is in default as a result of her failure to
appear at the hearing.
5.
On August 30,
2007, the Department properly ordered the Licensee to pay a fine pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 245A.07, subd. 3 (2006), because she failed to submit a
background study for an adult member of her household and failed to ensure that
a substitute caregiver had completed training on sudden infant death syndrome
and shaken baby syndrome.
6.
On August 30, 2007, the Department properly placed the Licensee’s family child care license on
conditional status for one year pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 245A.06, subd. 1
(2006), because she had violated rules requiring completion of background
studies, operated over capacity and out of ratio, failed to adequately
supervise children in care, allowed a child to provide care to another child in
care, failed to complete required training, and failed to comply with numerous
licensing rules concerning environmental health and safety.
7.
On December 13, 2007, the Department properly revoked the
Licensee’s family child care license because
she had failed to comply with the conditional license and continued to operate
in violation of
8.
Minn. Stat. § 245A.07
(2006) empowers the Commissioner to revoke a license if a license holder fails
to comply fully with applicable laws
or rules.
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the
Commissioner AFFIRM the August 30, 2007, Order to Forfeit a Fine and Order of
Conditional Licensure and the December 13, 2007, Order of Revocation.
Dated: May 21, 2008
|
s/Kathleen D. Sheehy |
|
KATHLEEN D. SHEEHY |
|
Administrative Law Judge |
Reported: Default (no tapes)
No
transcript prepared
This
report is a recommendation, not a final decision. The Commissioner of Human Services will issue
a final decision after reviewing the administrative record, and he may adopt,
reject or modify the Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions,
and Recommendations. The parties have 10
calendar days after receiving this recommended decision in which to file any
exceptions to the report with the Commissioner.[5] Parties should contact the office of Cal
Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services,
If the
Commissioner fails to issue a final decision within 90 days of the close of the
record, this report will constitute the final agency decision under Minn. Stat.
§ 14.62, subd. 2a. The record closes
upon the filing of exceptions to the report and the presentation of argument to
the Commissioner, or upon the expiration of the deadline for doing so. The Commissioner must notify the parties and
the Administrative Law Judge of the date on which the record closes.
Under