Pooh Bear Acad. v. Ala. Dep't of Human Res.
| Docket Number | CL-2022-0949 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 2023 |
| Parties | Pooh Bear Academy v. Alabama Department of Human Resources |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-22-900285)
Pooh Bear Academy ("PBA") appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the circuit court") in favor of the Alabama Department of Human Resources ("DHR") that affirms DHR's decision to suspend PBA's day-care-center license after a hearing before an administrative law judge ("the ALJ").
This case involves a dispute under the Child Care Act of 1971 ("the CCA"), Ala. Code 1975, § 38-7-1 et seq. PBA is a "day care center" operated by Teresa Williams, see Ala. Code 1975, § 38-7-2(4) (), and is required to have a license issued by DHR, see § 38-7-3(a).[1] Pursuant to the ore tenus rule, the following discussion reflects a summary of the evidence and inferences that could have been drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most favorable to DHR. See Ex parte Williamson, 907 So.2d 407, 416 (Ala. 2004); see also Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Dunivant, 265 Ala. 420, 424 91 So.2d 670, 674 (1956).
On April 24, 2021, PBA requested a clearance report regarding V.F., who was a teacher at PBA, from the central registry for child abuse and neglect ("CAN"), which is maintained by DHR. See § 38-7-7(a)(2) (discussing the "character, suitability, and qualifications of ... persons directly responsible" for the care of children among the "minimum standards" that DHR must "prescribe and publish" regarding child-care facilities); Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum Res.), rr. 660-5-26-.06(2)(a)2. (ii) and 660-5-26-.06(2)(b)8. (requiring a child-care facility's employee records to include a request for clearance from the CAN central registry "on the required form, indicating whether a perpetrator record was found" and an update of such request "every five (5) years"); see also Ala. Code 1975, § 26-14-8 (). On June 21, 2021, DHR sent PBA a letter informing it that V.F. had an indicated CAN report for physical abuse based on her inappropriate discipline of her three-year-old child in August 1997; the incident left "marks/bruises" on the child.
On July 29, 2021, Bridgette Smith, who was the licensing consultant that DHR had assigned to PBA's license-renewal application, inspected PBA's day-care center in connection with PBA's licenserenewal request. See § 38-7-7(c) (). Smith informed Williams that she would have to discuss with her supervisors what to do about V.F.'s indicated CAN report. During Smith's July 2021 licensing inspection, she and Williams also discussed certain other deficiencies at PBA's daycare center, and Smith thereafter reported 17 deficiencies to DHR regarding PBA's satisfaction of the "minimum standards" for its day-care center, including that V.F. had a substantiated CAN report on file.[3] Smith noted that Williams immediately had corrected most of those deficiencies at PBA's day-care center.
After Smith's July 2021 licensing inspection, Smith and Williams had further discussions about V.F.'s indicated CAN report. Williams also discussed the issue of V.F.'s continued employment at PBA with Debbie Dodd, who was DHR's complaint-intake supervisor and who supervised Smith and four other licensing consultants. Dodd testified that Williams
On the morning of August 9, 2021, Smith informed Williams by email that DHR's legal department had reviewed V.F.'s indicated CAN report, that DHR was not able to approve a waiver as to that report, and that "[t]he deficiency [would] stand until the employee is terminated or a cleared [CAN report] was received." Smith also informed Williams that all the other deficiencies noted during her July 2021 inspection had been corrected. Williams continued to dispute whether V.F.'s indicated CAN report should be treated as a deficiency for purposes of PBA's licenserenewal application.
By e-mail on August 12, 2021, Smith again informed Williams of the continuing deficiency regarding V.F.'s indicated CAN report. That same day, Williams sent Smith an e-mail with an attached letter stating that V.F.'s employment by PBA "ha[d] been terminated as requested per ... Smith and ... Dodd as the result of a substantiated [CAN report]."
Smith and Dodd discussed Williams's letter and disagreed with her that they had requested that PBA terminate V.F.'s employment. Instead, they contended that they had merely informed Williams of what DHR considered necessary to correct the deficiency regarding V.F. Dodd sent Williams an e-mail asking her to correct her letter regarding the termination of V.F.'s employment by removing Dodd's and Smith's names from the letter. Dodd's e-mail further stated that, if Williams was putting a reason for V.F.'s termination, she could refer to the evidence of unsuitable character as described in the minimum standards. On August 20, 2021, Williams purportedly prepared a letter to DHR stating: "As stated by [DHR,] to correct the deficiency of suitability as a substantiated [CAN report] was indicated for [V.F.,] employment was terminated as of August 11, 2021." Williams did not send that letter to DHR on August 20.
On September 2, 2021, Dodd received an anonymous complaint that V.F.'s employment had never been terminated, apparently after some parents whose child was enrolled at PBA had learned of the deficiency report. See Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-5-26-.10 (describing types of corrective actions DHR may impose and requiring that written notice of a deficiency report be posted at the child-care facility that is the subject of that report). Smith and Dodd investigated that complaint the following day. When they arrived at PBA's day-care center, Dodd initially remained outside "counting ratios" on the playground until Smith texted her that V.F. was inside the facility. According to Dodd, when she entered the day-care facility, V.F. "was sitting in the school-age classroom." Dodd stated that she had informed Williams about the anonymous complaint she had received, but Williams denied that Dodd had told her about the complaint. Also, Williams admitted in a statement that she prepared for Smith and Dodd that V.F. "was present in a room with children" when Smith and Dodd arrived, but she later denied that children had been present.
According to Williams and V.F., V.F.'s presence at PBA on September 3 when Smith and Dodd arrived on September 3, 2021, was a coincidence; V.F. purportedly was at PBA only to complete paperwork for food stamps. Williams stated that V.F. was merely "waiting on her ride to come and pick her up." Nevertheless, Smith and Dodd prepared a deficiency report stating that, upon their arrival at PBA, V.F., a person with an indicated CAN report, was present in the facility. During the investigation on September 3, Dodd informed Williams that DHR still needed a proper letter regarding the termination of V.F.'s employment to clear that deficiency. Thereafter, Williams left PBA and returned 10-15 minutes later with the August 20 letter referred to above. During Williams's testimony, she stated that Dodd had threatened her and screamed at her about the need for the corrected letter regarding the termination of V.F.'s employment. The testimony on that issue was in conflict, however, and the statement that Williams gave to Smith and Dodd on September 3 includes no reference to threatening behavior.[4] Also, while they were at PBA on September 3, Smith again inspected the day-care center, along with Dodd, in conjunction with PBA's license-renewal application. Smith and Dodd reported five additional deficiencies since Smith's July 2021 licensing-renewal inspection, including three teacher-student ratio violations and two failures to post required reports. Williams corrected two of the teacherstudent ratio deficiencies on September 3, 2021.
After Smith and Dodd's September 3 license-renewal inspection Williams telephoned Bernard Houston, who was the director of DHR's child-care-services division. According to Houston, Williams stated that Smith and Dodd had been unprofessional and rude to her. A few weeks later, Williams left Houston a voicemail stating that she would not allow Smith or Dodd back on PBA's property based on what she alleged was inappropriate behavior. She also requested that Houston assign PBA a different licensing consultant and requested that he telephone...
To continue reading
Request your trial