Ghebre v. Md. State Dep't of Educ.
| Decision Date | 21 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2759,2759 |
| Parties | SARA GHEBRE v. MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF CHILD CARE |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
SARA GHEBRE
v.
MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF CHILD CARE
No. 2759
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
September Term, 2013
June 21, 2016
UNREPORTED
Meredith, Berger, Kenney, James A., III (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Meredith, J.
* This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
Page 2
Sara Ghebre, appellant, appeals the decision of the Office of Child Care denying her application for a family child care certificate which would have enabled her to provide child day care in her home. The agency's denial was affirmed on administrative appeal to the Office of Administrative Hearings, and again affirmed when appellant filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Charles County. Appellant asks that we reverse the ruling of the circuit court and order the Office of Child Care to issue her the certificate she seeks. We will not grant her request for relief.
Although appellant presented four questions in her brief, the only issue properly before this Court for appellate review is whether the agency's decision was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence.1 Tomlinson v. BKL York LLC, 219 Md. App. 606,
Page 3
614 (2014). We answer that question "yes," and affirm the Circuit Court for Charles County.
In September 2000, the Maryland Child Care Administration issued appellant a certificate of registration to operate a family day care service in her home.2 Appellant began providing child care services for several children. On November 15, 2001, appellant drove in her van with four children — two of her own children, and two day care children — to a bank, and then stopped at BJ's in Waldorf to purchase snacks. The children were 11 months old, 14 months old, 2 years old, and 3 years old. When appellant arrived at BJ's, she realized that the two older children had fallen asleep. Rather than waking the two sleeping children, and taking all four of the children in her care into BJ's, appellant parked her van in a no-parking zone in front of the store, gave her 14-month-old child a piece of bread so
Page 4
that he would not cry, left the driver's window partially down, and went into the store. She left the van doors unlocked. While in the store, she was not always within sight of the van; in any event, she could not have seen into the van because it had tinted windows.
While appellant was shopping inside the store, she overheard comments about children and a van. Realizing the children and the van being discussed were her children and her van, she went outside and found several "angry" people around her van. She was told that the police had been called. She waited for officers from the Charles County Sheriff's Office to arrive. She was eventually charged criminally with four counts of confining an unattended child in a motor vehicle, in violation of § 5-801 of the Family Law Article. On April 9, 2002, appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of confining an unattended child. The three remaining charges were nol prossed. Appellant was sentenced to 30 days, with all but two days suspended, and one year of unsupervised probation. Her motion for reconsideration, in which she asked to be granted probation before judgment, was denied on May 7, 2002.
The Sheriff's Office notified Child Protective Services of the events at BJ's the day they occurred, and appellant contacted the Child Care Administration the next day. A Child Protective Services investigation commenced on November 20, 2001, and resulted in a finding of Indicated Child Neglect, with appellant identified as the neglector. As of April 2002, appellant had on her record both a criminal conviction for confining an unattended child, and an "indicated" finding by Child Protective Services that she had committed child neglect.
Page 5
On December 13, 2001, the Child Care Administration advised appellant of its intent to revoke her certificate of registration to operate a family day care. The December 13 letter cited the incident at BJ's, and characterized appellant's actions on that occasion as "unsafe and not appropriate supervision," in violation of COMAR 07.04.01.24.3 Additionally, the letter advised appellant that an inspection of appellant's home by the Child Care Administration on November 16, 2001, revealed further COMAR violations, namely that appellant lacked certain required documentation for the children in her care.4 On January 15,
Page 6
2002, the Child Care Administration sent appellant a supplemental addendum to its December 13, 2001, letter, advising her that the results of the Child Protective Services investigation provided an additional reason for its revocation of her license.
Appellant filed an administrative appeal of the license revocation. On April 8, 2002, following a contested case hearing by the Office of Administrative Hearings on March 15, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued an opinion and order affirming the revocation. Appellant filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Charles County, which issued an opinion and order on March 13, 2003, affirming the ALJ's decision to affirm the revocation. Appellant's appeal to this Court was unsuccessful, and resulted in the issuance of an unreported opinion on November 21, 2005, again affirming the agency's decision to revoke her certificate. Sara Alem Ghebre v. Department of Human Resources, Child Care Administration, No. 01136, Sept. Term, 2004.
It appears from the record that, on November 10, 2003, appellant re-applied for a family day care certificate of registration. In connection with the application, appellant's home was inspected on June 9, 2004, and found to be noncompliant with six different
Page 7
regulations under COMAR 07.04.01.5 Appellant's application was denied on June 18, 2004. Appellant appealed the denial, but later withdrew the appeal.
On October 28, 2008, appellant again applied for a family day care certificate of registration. On December 8, 2008, the Office of Child Care notified appellant by letter that it was denying her application on the basis of her prior history and the agency's conclusion that appellant was "unable to provide for the health, safety, or welfare of day care children." Appellant filed an administrative appeal, which was heard on March 26, 2009. The ALJ issued an opinion and order on March 30, 2009, affirming the denial of appellant's application.
Page 8
On December 19, 2011, appellant again applied for a family child care certificate of registration. The denial of this application is the subject of the present appeal. By letter dated January 18, 2012, the Office of Child Care notified appellant that it was denying her application. The letter was almost identical to the denial letter sent by the Office of Child Care on December 8, 2008. Appellant again filed an administrative appeal. A contested case hearing was conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings on March 20, 2012. On April 25, 2012, the ALJ issued an opinion and order affirming the Office of Child Care's denial of appellant's application.
The ALJ made 23 findings of fact, most of which were recitations of appellant's prior history with both the Child Care Administration and the Office of Child Care, and of her repeated attempts to become licensed as a family day care provider. The ALJ made the following factual findings:
19. On December 19, 2011, the Appellant submitted another application for a [Family Day Care] Certificate[of Registration].
20. In Section II of the application, the Appellant was asked if she or any other person living in the family day care home had ever been convicted of any criminal charge, or received a probation before judgment disposition, or received a not criminally responsible disposition. The Appellant checked the "YES" box and explained: "Your office has necessary information in connection to this matter in this section."
21. In Section II of the application, the Appellant was asked i[f] she or any other persons living in the family child care home had ever been reported for child or adult abuse or neglect. The Appellant checked the "YES" box and explained: "Your office has all the details relating to this matter on your file. Nothing other than what is in your record."
Page 9
22. In Section II of the application, the Appellant was asked if she had ever had a license, registration or certification for any type of care denied, suspended or revoked. The Appellant checked the "YES" box and explained: "Revoked in April 2002. Denied number of times. Please refer to your record for exact date of denial."
23. On January 18, 2012, Susan C. Copsey, Regional Manager for Region X, [the Office of Child Care], denied the Appellant's December 19, 2011 application for an initial family day care certificate of registration.
Ms. Copsey testified at the hearing. She had been the Regional Manager for the relevant region of the Office of Child Care (and its predecessor, the Child Care Administration) since March of 1991. Ms. Copsey authored the December 13, 2001, letter notifying appellant that the Child Care Administration was revoking her registration, and she wrote the January 15, 2002, addendum to that letter. Additionally, Ms. Copsey wrote the denial letters of June 18, 2004, December 8, 2008, and January 18, 2012. The ALJ characterized Ms. Copsey's testimony as "strong, persuasive support for the Office of Child Care's decision to deny the Appellant's application." Ms. Copsey testified about appellant's history with the agency, and was then asked why appellant's 2011 application for a certificate of registration had been denied. The following testimony is relevant:
[BY THE STATE]: All right. Has anything changed since [appellant] was originally...
To continue reading
Request your trial