PRISCILLA CARSWELL YOUNG
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
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 Department of Children and Families lawfully denied an exemption from disqualification for a daycare owner with an aggravated battery conviction under an amended statute that excludes such offenses from exemption eligibility.
[1] A state agency may not retroactively apply a statutory amendment to deny an exemption previously granted, particularly when the applicant has operated under the exemption…
[2] Denying a previously granted exemption based on a subsequent statutory amendment, after an applicant has relied on that exemption for fifteen years, can be inequitable an…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“to do so in this instance is simply inequitable and unfair”
Judge May's concurring opinion criticizing the retroactive application of the amended statute to the daycare owner despite her long history of lawful operation
A daycare owner pleaded to an aggravated battery charge and received an exemption from disqualification in 2004 based on clear and convincing evidence…
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 Equitable Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. MAY, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. MAY, J., concurs specially with opinion, in which CIKLIN, J., concurs. MAY, J., concurring specially.
I concur with the majority to affirm this appeal, but I do so only because there is no legal basis to reverse. The day care owner pleaded to an aggravated battery charge seventeen years ago. She applied to the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) for an exemption from disqualification in 2004. The hearing officer recommended the exemption be granted based on the day care owner’s “clear and convincing evidence to support a reasonable belief that she is of good moral character.” The DCF agreed and granted her an exemption.
The day care owner ran her program for fifteen years without incident, at least from the record before us. Nevertheless, the DCF denied her the
2
same exemption based on an amendment to section 435.07, Florida Statutes, which excludes aggravated battery as an offense for which an exemption can be granted. The day care owner requested a review hearing and informed the DCF that she had obtained the exemption previously, and had been licensed “for over 20 years,” and that a denial of an exemption was “not fair . . . as this issue was finalized 13 years ago and [she had] been operating [her] home daycare since with no problem.”
I agree with the day care owner. Here, aggravated battery was always a disqualifying offense. Yet, the DCF permitted her to operate her day care center for fifteen years. Although the amended statute, which now disallows the exemption, appears to allow for its retroactive application, to do so in this instance is simply inequitable and unfair.
CIKLIN, J., concurs.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.