Court Opinion

ID: 9900252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:04:42.324181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:02.809242
License: Public Domain

REL: November 17, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

 ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
                               OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
                                _________________________

                                         CL-2022-0949
                                   _________________________

                                      Pooh Bear Academy

                                                      v.

                   Alabama Department of Human Resources

                     Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
                                (CV-22-900285)

                                 On Application for Rehearing

EDWARDS, Judge.

        The opinion of June 23, 2023, is withdrawn, and the following

opinion is substituted therefor.
CL-2022-0949

     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) (defining

"day care center," which is a type of "child care facility," see § 38-7-2(7),

defining "child care facility"), 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

     1PBA originally operated without a license, apparently pursuant to

an exception to the licensure requirement of § 38-7-3(a), Ala. Code 1975.
See Ala. Code 1975, § 38-7-3(b)(1).

                                     2
CL-2022-0949

Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Dunivant, 265 Ala. 420, 424, 91 So. 2d 670,

674 (1956).

     On April 21, 2021, PBA filed an application with DHR seeking to

renew its day-care-center license, which was set to expire on June 6,

2021.2   See § 38-7-6(a) (discussing the license-renewal requirement).

Section 38-7-6(b) requires DHR to

     "reexamine every child-care facility for renewal of license or
     approval, including in that process, but not limited to, the
     examination of the premises and records of the facility and
     the persons responsible for the care of children as [DHR]
     considers necessary to determine that minimum standards for
     licensing or approval continue to be met …. If [DHR] … is
     satisfied that the facility continues to meet and maintain
     minimum standards which [DHR] prescribes and publishes,
     [DHR] shall renew the license or approval to operate the
     facility …."

     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

     2PBA    was the d/b/a name of Barney Child Care and Learning
Center, an Alabama non-profit corporation apparently owned by
Williams, on the original day-care-center license. However, Williams
filed the renewal application under PBA's name.
                                    3
CL-2022-0949

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 (discussing the central registry). On June 21,

2021, DHR sent PBA a letter informing it that V.F. had an "indicated"

CAN report for physical abuse, see Ala. Admin Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.),

r. 660-5-34-07(1), 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 license-

renewal request.     See § 38-7-7(c) ("[DHR], in applying standards

prescribed and published, as herein provided, shall offer consultation

through employed staff or other specified persons to assist applicants and

                                    4
CL-2022-0949

licensees in meeting and maintaining minimum requirements for a

license and to help them otherwise to achieve programs of excellence

related to the care of children served."). 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 day-

care 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 the

     3The evidence at the hearing before the ALJ, see infra, included a

DHR publication discussing DHR's minimum standards in more detail,
which had been provided to PBA. Those minimum standards included a
statement that evidence of unsuitable character included an indicated
CAN report and that such evidence "[would] be evaluated to determine
whether or not it constitutes a danger to the children" and that a license
application could be denied or a license revoked when an employee of
unsuitable character was determined to have contact with children. The
applicability of those minimum standards is undisputed. Also, effective
September 13, 2021, the "minimum standards" were updated and
republished as "performance standards." However, the above-quoted
CAN provisions remained substantially unchanged in the "performance
standards."

                                    5
CL-2022-0949

deficiencies at PBA's day-care center.       PBA was given a 90-day

compliance deadline of October 28, 2021, to correct all deficiencies.

     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

"just could not understand. And I just kept going back to her saying that

[DHR] will have to make that decision."

     On the morning of August 9, 2021, Smith informed Williams by e-

mail 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 license-

renewal application.

                                    6
CL-2022-0949

     By e-mail on August 12, 2021, Smith again informed Williams of

the continuing deficiency due to 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

                                     7
CL-2022-0949

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 that 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

                                   8
CL-2022-0949

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, 2021, when Smith and Dodd arrived 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

                                    9
CL-2022-0949

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 teacher-

student 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

     4V.F. filed a request with DHR to have her name removed from the

central registry. On September 17, 2021, DHR informed her that it could
not remove her name from the central registry because expungement was
only allowed after a "not indicated" finding. See Ala. Code 1975, § 26-14-
8(e) ("In the case of any child abuse or neglect investigation which is
determined to be 'not indicated,' the alleged perpetrator may request
after five years from the completion of the investigation that his or her
name be expunged from the central registry so long as [DHR] has
received no further reports concerning the alleged perpetrator during the
five years, at which time [DHR] shall expunge the name.").
                                    10
CL-2022-0949

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 her.

Houston did not grant Smith's request for a different licensing consultant

to be assigned to PBA and did not return Williams's telephone call.

     On September 24, 2021, Smith attempted to inspect PBA's day-care

center to determine if Williams had corrected the deficiencies that had

not previously been cleared.    Williams was not present when Smith

arrived at the day-care center, and the staff that was present would not

allow Smith to enter the day-care center. Smith noted that, when PBA's

15-passenger van arrived at PBA, there were 16 children and the adult

driver in that van. The driver, who apparently had telephoned Williams,

handed Smith her cellular telephone. Williams told Smith that she was

"not allowed at the facility and you need to leave my property." Smith

thereafter   reported   the   transportation   and   refusal-of-access-for-

inspection deficiencies, along with the three remaining deficiencies from

                                   11
CL-2022-0949

the September 3 inspection, which she could not confirm had been

corrected. After receiving Smith's report, Dodd contacted her supervisor

regarding the situation and indicated that she was concerned that the

refusal to allow Smith access might have been because V.F. was again

present at PBA's day-care center.5

     5Williams also had previously denied Smith access for inspection.

On October 8, 2020, Smith performed an annual inspection of PBA's day-
care center. Smith noted 25 deficiencies, including deficiencies relating
to PBA's 15-passenger van and missing "suitability information"
regarding some staff, "i.e., CAN forms and suitability letters." (It does
not appear that V.F. was employed by PBA in October 2020.) Williams
corrected approximately one-half of the deficiencies while Smith was
present. PBA was given a 90-day compliance deadline of January 8,
2021, to correct the remaining deficiencies from the October 2020 annual
inspection. Smith's follow-up inspections in November 2020 and
December 2020 reflected that certain deficiencies had not been corrected
as of the date of those respective inspections, and the latter inspection
included an additional deficiency relating to the lack of supervision of five
children who were present in a classroom, which Williams corrected at
that time. Smith returned for her 90-day compliance inspection on
January 11, 2021, but, according to Smith, PBA's staff denied her access
to PBA's day-care center, which Smith noted as an additional deficiency.
After Williams arrived at the day-care center, Smith was allowed to
perform her inspection, and she noted additional deficiencies, which were
corrected on that day. A few deficiencies from the October 2020 annual
inspection remained uncorrected as of January 11, but it was undisputed
that PBA eventually corrected those remaining deficiencies. According
to Williams, Smith had already completed her January 11, 2021,
inspection when Williams arrived at the day-care center, Smith behaved
                                    12
CL-2022-0949

     On September 27, 2021, Smith again went to inspect PBA's day-

care center, and the staff refused to allow her access. Dodd accompanied

Smith for the inspection. Williams told Smith and Dodd via telephone

that they were "not allowed at the facility and you need to leave my

property." Smith and Dodd reported the refusal-of-access-for-inspection

deficiency, along with the deficiencies from Smith's September 24, 2021,

inspection and the remaining deficiencies from their September 3, 2021,

inspection, which they could not confirm had been corrected.

     After Williams arrived at PBA's day-care center, Dodd handed a

letter to Williams from DHR regarding PBA's license renewal. The letter

informed Williams that PBA's day-care-center license would not be

renewed if PBA was not in full compliance with the minimum standards

applicable to day-care centers and that "refusal to submit to investigation

by DHR or refusal to admit authorized DHR representatives during

reasonable times for the purpose of investigation [would] preclude the

renewal of [PBA's] license." The letter also recounted the circumstances

inappropriately toward her when she arrived, and she complained to
DHR about Smith's purportedly inappropriate behavior.
                                13
CL-2022-0949

regarding V.F. and reminded Williams "that allowing [V.F.] to work

around the children [was] a violation" of pertinent standards and would

preclude the renewal of PBA's day-care-center license. The letter further

informed Williams that Smith was an authorized representative of DHR,

that she must be permitted to complete her investigation regarding

outstanding deficiency matters, and that DHR would not renew PBA's

day-care-center license without the completion of Smith's investigation.

         On September 29, 2021, DHR hand delivered to Williams a letter

("the suspension letter") suspending PBA's day-care-center license,

effective immediately pending the outcome of a hearing, pursuant to §

38-7-11 of the CCA and Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-19(d) of the Alabama

Administrative Procedure Act ("the AAPA"), Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-1 et

seq. 6     The suspension letter stated that the "SUSPENSION [was]

         6Section 38-7-11, Ala. Code 1975, states:

               "[DHR] shall have the right and its authorized
         representatives shall be afforded reasonable opportunity, to
         inspect … any child-care facility seeking a renewal of a license
         … pursuant to this chapter …. Such inspection shall include,
         but not be limited to, premises, services, personnel, program,
         accounts and records, interviews with agents and employees
         of the child-care facility being inspected and interviews with
                                        14
CL-2022-0949

     any child or other person within the custody or control of said
     child-care facility. Such inspection shall be made at any
     reasonable time, without prior notice, and as often as
     necessary to enforce and administer the provisions of this
     chapter. It shall be the duty of [DHR], through its agents, to
     conduct the inspections authorized hereinabove. If any such
     inspection of a licensed or approved child-care facility
     discloses any condition, deficiency, dereliction or abuse which
     is, or could be, hazardous to the health, the safety or the
     physical, moral or mental well-being of the children in the
     care of the child-care facility being inspected, the same shall
     at once be brought to the attention of [DHR], and [DHR] shall
     have the power to revoke without notice the license … of such
     child-care facility. In this event, the child-care facility shall
     not operate during the pendency of any proceeding for fair
     hearing or judicial review, except under court order."

Section 41-22-19(d), Ala. Code 1975, states:

     "If the agency finds that danger to the public health, safety,
     or welfare requires emergency suspension of a license and
     states in writing its reasons for that finding, it may proceed
     without hearing or upon any abbreviated hearing that it finds
     practicable to suspend the license. The suspension shall
     become effective immediately, unless otherwise stated
     therein. The suspension may be effective for a period of not
     longer than 120 days and shall not be renewable. An agency
     shall not suspend the same license for the same or a
     substantially similar emergency within one calendar year
     from its first suspension unless the agency clearly establishes
     that it could not reasonably be foreseen during the initial 120-
     day period that such emergency would continue or would
     likely reoccur during the next nine months. When such
     summary suspension is ordered, a formal suspension or
                                   15
CL-2022-0949

necessary because of the imminent danger to the health, safety, and

welfare of the children who attend the center."        (Capitalization in

original; some emphasis omitted.) The suspension letter further stated

that the suspension was based on V.F.'s employment; PBA's refusal to

allow Smith to perform her inspection on September 24, 2021, to verify

the correction of outstanding deficiencies, including the deficiency

regarding V.F.'s employment, and to verify compliance with the

minimum standards; and PBA's refusal to allow Smith and Dodd to

perform their inspection on September 27, 2021, to verify whether V.F.

was still "working around the children" and to verify compliance with the

minimum standards. According to the suspension letter, PBA's refusal

to allow inspections on September 24 and on September 27 "pose[d] a risk

of harm to the health, the safety, or the physical, moral, or mental well-

being of the children at [PBA]."7 The suspension letter also informed

     revocation proceeding under subsection (c) of this section shall
     also be promptly instituted and acted upon."

See also Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-5-26-.10.

     7Based on Williams's refusal to allow Smith access to PBA's day-

care center, Amanda Laney, who was a CAN investigator for the Elmore
                                16
CL-2022-0949

Williams that PBA's day-care center could not operate while its license

was suspended, that PBA was "entitled to [a] suspension/pre-revocation

hearing," that she would be "notified of the time, date, and place of the

hearing by separate letter," and that a "detailed statement of issues to be

considered at the pre-revocation hearing will follow in the near future."

The record does not indicate whether DHR made any other

communication with Williams regarding the hearing before October 8,

2021, when PBA requested a fair hearing regarding the suspension of its

license pursuant to the suspension letter. See § 38-7-9; see also Ala.

County Department of Human Resources, was sent to PBA to perform a
welfare check on September 28, 2021, to confirm that V.F. was not
present and that the children were receiving adequate supervision.
Laney testified that, when she initially arrived at PBA, she was refused
entry by Annie Cooper, who was the assistant director of PBA, because
Williams had told Cooper not to allow Laney into the facility. After
leaving the premises and consulting with her DHR supervisor, Laney
returned to PBA with law-enforcement officers, was again refused entry,
but was told that Williams would be at PBA in five minutes. After
Williams arrived, she allowed Laney into PBA's facility and allowed her
to very briefly observe children and classrooms to confirm the teacher-
child ratios. However, when Laney requested a list of the children's
names and the contact information for their parents for purposes of her
investigation regarding whether V.F. had continued to work with
children at the day-care center, Williams refused to provide that
information and told Laney to leave, which Laney did.
                                   17
CL-2022-0949

Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-5-26-.11; Ala. Admin. Code

(Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-1-5-.03.

     On October 28, 2021, DHR sent Williams a letter ("the

revocation/application-denial letter") notifying her that PBA's license

had been suspended effective September 29, 2021, pending a hearing;

that the "SUSPENSION [was] necessary because of the imminent danger

to the health, safety, and welfare of the children who attend the childcare

center" (capitalization in original; some emphasis omitted); and that

PBA's license remained suspended. The revocation/application-denial

letter continued:

           "[DHR] has sufficient reason to determine that the day
     care center license issued to [PBA] … should be REVOKED.
     The statutory and regulatory authority for the revocation of
     the license is found in [Ala. Code 1975, §] 38-7-8,[8] [§] 38-7-9,
     [§] 38-7-11, and [§] 41-22-19, and in the [Ala. Admin. Code
     (Dep't of Hum. Res.), rr.] 660-5-26[-.01 et seq.]

     8Section  38-7-8, Ala. Code 1975, describes DHR's authority to
"revoke or refuse to renew" a license based on, among other things, the
"consistent fail[ure] to maintain" required standards, furnishing
misleading statements to DHR, the "fail[ure] or refus[al] to submit to an
investigation," the "fail[ure] or refus[al] to admit" DHR's authorized
representative, and the failure to maintain the day-care facility in a safe
condition.
                                    18
CL-2022-0949

          "Furthermore, this letter is to inform you that [DHR]
    has sufficient reason to determine that the application for a
    license … to operate [PBA] … should be DENIED. This
    DENIAL is based on … § 38-7-8.

           "… Section 38-7-8 states that [DHR] may revoke or
    refuse to renew the license or the approval of any child-care
    facility should the facility '(1) Consistently fail to maintain
    standards prescribed and published by [DHR], (2) Violate the
    provisions of the license issued, … (6) Fail or refuse to admit
    authorized representatives of the Department at any
    reasonable time for the purpose of investigation, [or] (7) Fail
    to provide, maintain, equip and keep in safe and sanitary
    condition premises established or used for child care as
    required under standards prescribed by [DHR] or as other
    required by any law, regulation or ordinance applicable to
    such facility.' The following issues are to be considered at the
    pre-revocation/denial hearing:

         "A. SUSPENSION OF [PBA's] LICENSE

         "….

               "1. By letter dated [September 29, 2021], you
         were notified that [DHR] decided to suspend the
         license of [PBA]. This suspension was based on
         conditions considered hazardous to the health,
         safety, or physical, moral, or mental well-being of
         the children in your care.

        "B.  FAILURE OR   REFUSAL   TO   ADMIT
    AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF [DHR] AT ANY
    REASONABLE TIME FOR     THE   PURPOSE OF
    INVESTIGATION

               "….
                                  19
CL-2022-0949

                "On or about September 24, 2021, during
         regular business hours, an authorized DHR
         employee returned to [PBA] for the purpose of
         investigating whether [V.F.] was working at [PBA]
         and to investigate whether there were any
         deficiencies that would prevent renewal of [PBA's]
         license. [PBA] employees and [Williams] refused
         the authorized DHR employee access to the [PBA]
         facility. A [PBA] employee put [Williams] on the
         phone with the authorized DHR employee, and
         [she] told her that she could not enter the [PBA]
         facility or be on the premises. Additionally,
         [Williams] called the DHR Children Services office
         on that same day and left a message that [she]
         would not allow the authorized DHR employee
         access to [PBA].

                "On or about September 27, 2021, during
         regular business hours, two authorized DHR
         employees returned to [PBA] for the purpose of
         determining whether [V.F.] was working at the
         facility and to investigate whether there were any
         deficiencies that would prevent renewal of your
         license. The authorized DHR employees were
         again denied access to the facility by [Williams].
         [Williams was] informed verbally and in writing
         that continued refusal to allow the authorized
         DHR employees access to the facility would likely
         result in [PBA's] license being revoked and/or
         denied.     [Williams] continued to deny the
         authorized DHR employees' access to the facility
         to conduct their investigation, which prevented
         the investigation from occurring.

        "C. FAILURE TO PROVIDE, MAINTAIN, EQUIP AND
    KEEP IN SAFE AND SANITARY CONDITION PREMISES
                           20
CL-2022-0949

    ESTABLISHED OR USED FOR CHILD CARE AS
    REQUIRED UNDER STANDARD PRESCRIBED BY [DHR],
    OR AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW, REGULATION
    OR ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO SUCH FACILITY

              "[Discussion of alleged failure to supervise on
         September 24, 2021]

        "D.      VIOLATIONS       OF    PROVISIONS        OF THE
    LICENSE

               "…. [PBA] violated the provision of [its]
         license in a manner that was hazardous to the
         health and safety of the children in [its] facility as
         follows:

                     "1. [Discussion of the failure to
               allow DHR representatives access to
               PBA's day-care center on September
               24, 2021, and September 27, 2021]

                    "2. [Discussion of the failure to
               allow a DHR representative access to
               PBA's day-care center on January 11,
               2021. See note 5, supra.]

                    "….

        "E.  CONSISTENT FAILURE TO MAINTAIN
    STANDARDS PRESCRIBED AND PUBLISHED BY [DHR]

               "[Extensive discussion regarding PBA's
         history of deficiencies in October, November, and
         December 2020 and in July and September 2021.]

                                  21
CL-2022-0949

          "The regulatory authority for the SUSPENSION and
     DENIAL/REVOCATION is found in [Ala. Admin. Code rr.]
     660-5-26[-.01 et seq.] ….

          "You are entitled to a suspension/pre-revocation/denial
     hearing. You will be notified of the time and place of the
     hearing by separate letter."

(Capitalization in original; some emphasis omitted.) On November 9,

2021, PBA timely requested "a fair pre-revocation/denial hearing,"

referencing the revocation/application-denial letter. See § 38-7-9, r. 660-

5-26-.11, and r. 660-1-5-.03.

     The respective fair-hearing proceedings were consolidated, and, in

December 2021, the ALJ conducted ore tenus proceedings regarding the

suspension of PBA's day-care-center license, the revocation of PBA's day-

care-center license, and the denial of PBA's license-renewal application.

On January 14, 2022, the ALJ entered a detailed order quoting

substantially all the suspension letter and the revocation/application-

denial letter and making findings of fact and conclusions of law. The

January 2022 order stated that the issues regarding V.F. were "at the

core of the suspension/denial/revocation," as was the refusal to allow

                                    22
CL-2022-0949

DHR's representatives to have access to PBA's day-care center for

purposes of inspection. The January 2022 order continued

           "With the exception of the allegations regarding the
     individual employed by the PBA with an indicated [CAN], and
     … Williams and/or her employees refusing DHR employees
     access to the PBA, I find that the numerous violations of the
     minimum standards alleged by [DHR] were, for the most part,
     corrected by … Williams as she was made aware of them.

          "The evidence established that those deficiencies,
     standing alone and once corrected, would not have warranted
     the adverse licensing action taken by [DHR] against the
     PBA."

     The ALJ then made findings of fact regarding the issues relating to

V.F. and PBA's denial of access to Smith and Dodd, specifically noting

that Williams had left Houston a voicemail stating that "because of what

she considered inappropriate behavior by … Smith and … Dodd, they

would not be allowed back on PBA premises." The order continued:

           "On September 24, 2021, … Smith returned to the PBA
     for an inspection to determine if outstanding deficiencies had
     been corrected. … Smith was denied access to the PBA at
     that time.

           "On September 27, 2021, … Smith and … Dodd again
     returned to the PBA for a licensing inspection. [They] were
     denied access to the center. They then handed delivered a
     letter to … Williams which stated:

                                  23
CL-2022-0949

              " 'According to [the minimum standards] "[a]
         renewal of a license shall be issued, if, upon
         investigation and re-examination, the child-care
         center continues to meet and maintain standards
         prescribed and published by [DHR]."

               " 'Your license was set to expire on June 6,
         2021. You timely applied for renewal, so your
         license continues to be valid under the provisions
         of Ala. Code 1975[,] § 41-22-19(b) until a final
         determination of the license has been made.[9]

                " 'Your license will not be renewed if your
         facility is not in full compliance with the
         [minimum standards]. Also, refusal to submit to
         an investigation by DHR or refusal to admit
         authorized       DHR      representatives  during
         reasonable times for the purpose of investigation
         will preclude the renewal of your license.

              " '[Discussion regarding V.F.'s employment
         and denying Smith access to PBA on September
         24]

             " 'According to the [minimum standards],
         "[DHR] may revoke or refuse to renew the license

    9Section 41-22-19(b), Ala. Code 1975, states:

    "When a licensee has made timely and sufficient application
    for the renewal of a license …, the existing license does not
    expire until the application has been finally determined by
    the agency, and, in case the application is denied or the terms
    of the new license limited, until the last day for seeking review
    of the agency order or a later date fixed by order of the
    reviewing court."
                                   24
CL-2022-0949

          of the child care facility […] should the operator(s):
          [f]ail or refuse to submit to an investigation by
          [DHR] [or] [f]ail or refuse to admit authorized
          representatives of [DHR] at any reasonable time
          for the purpose of investigation." If you continue
          to refuse to submit to [DHR's] investigation, your
          license will not be renewed. If you continue to
          refuse to admit any authorized [DHR]
          representative at reasonable times to conduct the
          investigation, your license will not be renewed.'

           "On September 29, 2021, DHR officials again went to
     PBA and were again denied access to the center. At that time,
     the suspension letter was hand delivered to … Williams."

     After discussing pertinent law and the pertinent minimum

standards, the January 2022 order concluded:

           "In the matter now before me, I find that the PBA did,
     on more than one occasion, deny [DHR] and its authorized
     representatives the right to inspect the child-care facility.

           "Given the nature of child-care facilities, which are
     charged with caring for young children in a supplemental or
     surrogate parent role, I find that the denial of access to the
     child-care facility of [DHR's] authorized representatives '… is,
     or could be, hazardous to the health, safety, or physical,
     moral, or mental well being of the children in the care of the
     child-care facility being inspected.' Therefore, I affirm
     [DHR's] decision to suspend the PBA's license.

          "With regard to [DHR's] decision to revoke/deny the
     PBA's license, I conditionally affirm that decision, given that
     [DHR]'s authorized representatives were denied access to the
     PBA and thus were unable to determine if … conditions
                                   25
CL-2022-0949

     existed at the PBA which 'is or could be, hazardous to the
     health, safety, or physical, moral, or mental well-being of the
     children in the care of the child-care facility being inspected.'

           "[DHR] is directed to inspect/evaluate the PBA to
     determine the PBA's current compliance with the minimum
     standards. If [DHR] determines that PBA is in compliance
     with the minimum standards, then it is directed to issue to
     the PBA a license or a probationary status license, at [DHR's]
     discretion, upon such conditions that [DHR] deems
     appropriate to protect the well-being of the children in the
     care of the PBA."

See r. 660-5-26-.10(2)(b) (stating that DHR "may revoke or refuse to

renew the license of the child care facility … should the operator(s): 5.

Fail or refuse to submit to an investigation by [DHR]; [or] 6. Fail or

refuse to admit authorized representatives of [DHR] at any reasonable

time for the purpose of investigation"). We note that the suspension of

PBA's license ended on January 27, 2022, 120 days after that suspension

began on September 29, 2021. See authorities cited in note 6, supra.

     It is undisputed that, after the entry of the January 2022 order,

DHR inspected PBA's facility and thereafter renewed PBA's license to

operate its day-care center. Based on the record before us (1) PBA did

not seek further review of the ALJ's decision affirming DHR's

determinations regarding whether its license was due to be revoked and
                                 26
CL-2022-0949

whether its renewal application was due to be denied based on the

evidence presented at trial and (2) DHR did not seek further review of

the ALJ's decision requiring it "to inspect/evaluate the PBA to determine

... PBA's current compliance with the minimum standards" and "to issue

to ... PBA a license or a probationary status license, at [DHR's] discretion"

provided PBA was in compliance with minimum standards as of the time

of such posttrial inspection. 10 Instead, PBA timely filed a notice of appeal

with DHR and filed a petition for judicial review in the circuit court

regarding the ALJ's affirmance of the suspension of its day-care-center

license. See § 41-22-20 and § 38-7-9. In its petition for judicial review,

     10Pursuant    to Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-19(b), a license "does not
expire until the [renewal] application has been finally determined by the
agency, and, in case the application is denied … until the last day for
seeking review of the agency order." However, § 41-22-19(b) did not affect
the finality of the January 2022 order, which affirmed DHR's denial of
PBA's renewal application, albeit also requiring DHR to conduct a
posttrial inspection and issue PBA a license if PBA was in compliance
with the minimum standards when such inspection was conducted. PBA
could have sought further review of the adverse adjudications as to the
revocation of its license and the denial of its license application in the
January 2022 order rather than choosing only to submit to a posttrial
inspection, at least before DHR inspected the day-care center and
renewed PBA's license, but PBA chose not to do so.

                                     27
CL-2022-0949

PBA alleged that the suspension of its license was erroneous for several

reasons, and PBA requested that the circuit court "accept" the

administrative record that DHR would submit, direct the parties to

submit briefs, and set the petition for oral argument. DHR filed an

answer to PBA's petition, denying the pertinent allegations thereof. 11

     The circuit court entered an order requesting that the parties brief,

on the merits, the ALJ's affirmance of the September 2021 suspension.

The briefs were due no later than May 19, 2022, and the parties filed

their respective briefs on that day. On June 14, 2022, the circuit court

entered a judgment affirming DHR's September 2021 suspension of

PBA's day-care-center license because, according to the circuit court,

     "[a]fter careful consideration of the entire record and the
     parties' briefs, neither [DHR] nor the [ALJ] exceed[ed] their
     statutory authority, were erroneous, or acted unreasonably.
     The record contain[ed] substantial evidence of [PBA's]

     11In response to a May 5, 2022, motion to supplement the record

filed by PBA in the circuit court, DHR filed an objection stating that PBA
"ha[d] expressly waived a review of the revocation of [its] license." (PBA's
motion to supplement the record related to an April 2022 "not indicated"
letter it had received from Elmore DHR based on Amanda Laney's
inspection for "suspected child abuse/neglect" in September 2021.) It is
unclear what express waiver DHR may have been referring to; the record
before us does not include an express waiver regarding review of the
ALJ's revocation decision.
                                    28
CL-2022-0949

     pathological non-compliance, including multiple reports over
     the period of their licensure identifying several violations that
     support and justify the suspension of [PBA's] license by [DHR]
     and the affirmance of that suspension by the [ALJ]."

     PBA filed a timely postjudgment motion, arguing that the circuit

court had erred by not receiving oral argument under Ala. Code 1975, §

41-22-20(j), particularly since it had not provided the opportunity for the

filing of responsive briefs, and by purportedly affirming the ALJ's

January 2022 order on a ground other than the ground stated by the ALJ,

who, PBA alleged, had himself erred by substituting his judgment for

that of DHR. See Ex parte Beverly Enterprises-Alabama, Inc., 812 So.

2d 1189, 1195 (Ala. 2001) (stating that, unlike appellate review of a

decision of a trial court, "[w]hen reviewing the decision of an

administrative agency … an Alabama court will affirm only if the action

and the stated basis for the action are correct"). The circuit court denied

PBA's postjudgment motion, without conducting a hearing on that

motion as requested by PBA. PBA filed a timely notice of appeal to this

court.

     PBA argues that the circuit court erred because, it says, (1) the

circuit court implicitly determined that substantial evidence did not
                                  29
CL-2022-0949

support the ALJ's reason for the suspension of PBA's day-care-center

license and substituted an alternative basis for that suspension12 and (2)

the ALJ's decision was capricious and clearly erroneous because there

was no evidence of imminent danger to children as DHR stated in the

suspension letter. PBA also contends that the circuit court erred by

failing to grant its request for oral argument regarding the petition for

judicial review pursuant to § 41-22-20(j). We pretermit any discussion of

the merits of these arguments.

     As DHR notes in its appellate brief, PBA has not challenged the

ALJ's affirmance of the denial of its license-renewal application and the

     12PBA    questions whether the ALJ's January 2022 order was
included in the record reviewed by the circuit court because the parties
supplemented the record on appeal to this court to include that order.
However, PBA admitted in its motion to supplement the record and
admits in its appellate brief that it did not know whether the January
2022 order was inadvertently omitted from the record that DHR had
provided to the circuit court or whether that order "does not appear in
the clerk's record for some other reason." The June 2022 judgment states
the circuit court reviewed and considered "the entirety of the record" and
specifically references the ALJ's January 2022 order. Also, the circuit
court ordered that the record on appeal be supplemented to include that
order, which it could not have done had that order not been part of what
the circuit court had received from DHR and reviewed. We will not
presume that the circuit court erred in that regard.

                                   30
CL-2022-0949

revocation of its day-care-center license, which was based on PBA's

failure to give Smith and Dodd access to PBA's day-care center for

purposes of inspection, the same grounds that supported the suspension

of its day-care-center license.13 DHR suggests, therefore, that any error

     13PBA    attempts to gain traction for its argument by noting the
distinction between whether denying DHR access for purposes of
inspection was a risk to the health, safety, or welfare of children or
merely could have posed such a risk. Likewise, PBA notes that Amanda
Laney's inspection had not revealed a danger to the children. Laney
testified that, "from what [she] could tell" in the "couple of seconds" she
was in the room with children, those children were safe and not in danger
"that [she was] aware of." The fact that PBA allowed Laney to perform
and complete an inspection after she was initially denied the opportunity
to do so and the results of that inspection are of no help to PBA, nor is its
attempt to draw a substantive distinction for purposes of this case
between whether a risk to the health, safety, and welfare of the children
existed or simply could have existed. It is DHR, not PBA, that controls
the timing of its inspection, which is to disclose the conditions that
existed when the inspection was requested, not at some other time of
PBA's choosing and perhaps after corrective actions may have been
taken. No subsequent inspection that PBA allowed reflects the
conditions that existed when PBA denied the initial inspection request,
and the evasion of an inspection allows an inference that conditions
existed or could have existed that posed a risk to the children at the time
access to the day-care center was requested and refused. To conclude
otherwise would allow licensees to thwart the purpose of the Child Care
Act of 1971 ("the CCA"), Ala. Code 1975, § 38-7-1 et seq., including § 38-
7-11, which authorizes DHR to inspect "at any reasonable time, without
prior notice, and as often as necessary to enforce and administer the
provisions of [the CCA]," particularly because a licensee's refusal to allow
an inspection when it is requested deprives DHR of the ability to obtain
                                     31
CL-2022-0949

regarding the suspension of PBA's day-care-center license should be

treated as harmless error under Rule 45, Ala. R. App. P., because, it says,

there was no injury to PBA from the previous suspension of its license.

Under the circumstances, we consider that issue as a variation of the

question whether the merits of the September 2021 suspension are moot,

which is not addressed by the parties but may be considered by this court

ex mero motu because it is a matter of subject-matter jurisdiction. See

Ex parte Connors, 855 So. 2d 486, 489 (Ala. 2003).

       In its reply brief, PBA responds to DHR's argument by contending

that

       "suspension could be used by DHR in future adverse actions,
       just as it did in its intent to revoke and deny renewal, the
       suspension affects a substantive right of [PBA] and creates
       injury. Therefore, DHR's contention that a finding of error by
       this Court would support Rule 45 Ala. R. App. P. application
       is incorrect."

PBA is correct that § 38-7-8(1) and DHR's disciplinary regulations

regarding license revocation discuss consideration of a party's consistent

the necessary evidence to make its decision whether a risk exists or could
exist to the health, safety, or welfare of the children at the time the
inspection is requested and denied.
                                   32
CL-2022-0949

failure to maintain the standards established by DHR as part of

subsequent disciplinary cases. See Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum.

Res.), r. 660-5-26-.10(1)(b)1. However, that avails PBA nothing under the

circumstances, and PBA has not directed us to legal authority that would

support the conclusion that it is harmed by the content of DHR's files on

PBA or that it has a right to require DHR to expunge its records.

     As noted above, the question whether an appeal no longer presents

a justiciable controversy on the ground of mootness is a question of

subject-matter jurisdiction that may be raised ex mero motu. Ex parte

Connors, supra.

                  " ' " 'The test for mootness is commonly
                  stated as whether the court's action on
                  the merits would affect the rights of the
                  parties.' Crawford v. State, 153 S.W.3d
                  497, 501 (Tex. App. 2004) (citing VE
                  Corp. v. Ernst & Young, 860 S.W.2d 83,
                  84 (Tex. 1993)). 'A case becomes moot
                  if at any stage there ceases to be an
                  actual controversy between the
                  parties.' Id. (emphasis added) (citing
                  National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v.
                  Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999))."

           " 'Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972, 983 (Ala.
           2007) (first emphasis added). See also Steffel v.
           Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 n.10, 94 S. Ct. 1209,
                                  33
CL-2022-0949

           39 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1974) ("[A]n actual controversy
           must be extant at all stages of review, not merely
           at the time the complaint is filed.").'

     "South Alabama Gas Dist. v. Knight, 138 So. 3d 971, 974-75
     (Ala. 2013).

           " ' "[A]n appeal will be dismissed as moot 'if an
           event happening after hearing and decree in
           circuit court, but before appeal is taken, or pending
           appeal, makes determination of the appeal
           unnecessary or renders it clearly impossible for
           the appellate court to grant effectual relief.' "
           Masonry Arts, [Inc. v. Mobile Cty. Comm'n,] 628
           So. 2d [334] at 335 [(Ala. 1993)], quoting Morrison
           v. Mullins, 275 Ala. 258, 259, 154 So. 2d 16, 18
           (1963).'

     "Estate of Mollett v. M & B Builders, L.L.C., 749 So. 2d 466,
     469 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).

                 " ' "The duty of this court, as of every other
           judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies
           by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and
           not to give opinions upon moot questions or
           abstract propositions, or to declare principles or
           rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue
           in the case before it." '

     "King v. Campbell, 988 So. 2d 969, 976 (Ala. 2007) (quoting
     Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S. Ct. 132, 40 L. Ed. 293
     (1895))."

Davis v. Davis, 221 So. 3d 474, 480-81 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).

                                    34
CL-2022-0949

       Based on the circumstances as they now exist, any decision by this

court will not remedy the temporary suspension of PBA's day-care-center

license; that suspension has ceased. Likewise, it would appear that the

ALJ's affirmance of DHR's decision to suspend PBA's day-care-center

license was based on the same grounds as his affirmance of DHR's

revocation/application-denial decision, i.e., the refusal to submit to

DHR's inspection when requested on September 24, 2021, and September

27, 2021. Thus, arguably, the latter decision and the basis for that

decision as determined by the ALJ are now established as a matter of

law.   See Caton v. City of Pelham, 329 So. 3d 5, 22-26 (Ala. 2020)

(discussing the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel in

relation to previous administrative adjudications). And, certainly, such

would remain in DHR's files regarding the revocation/application denial

decision.    Nevertheless, we need not determine whether PBA may be

precluded in future disciplinary proceedings, which are speculative at

this point, from challenging DHR's factual determinations as to the basis

for its suspension of PBA's license. As stated above, this court can do

nothing to remedy the temporary suspension of PBA's day-care-center

                                    35
CL-2022-0949

license at this juncture, and, accordingly, this appeal is due to be

dismissed as moot.

     APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF JUNE 23, 2023,

WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

     Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

                                 36