(a) A licensed or approved child-care facility operating under this chapter shall apply for renewal of its license or approval, the application to be made to the department on forms prescribed by it; provided, however, that application for renewal of approval of a boarding home may be made to the licensed child-placing agency which issued the approval.
(b) The department shall 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 the department considers necessary to determine that minimum standards for licensing or approval continue to be met; provided, however, that in the case of a boarding home approved by a licensed child-placing agency, such reexamination may be made by said agency. If the department or the licensed child-placing agency, as the case may be, is satisfied that the facility continues to meet and maintain minimum standards which the department prescribes and publishes, the department shall renew the license or approval to operate the facility or the licensed child-placing agency shall renew its approval of a boarding home.
(Acts 1971, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 174, p. 4423, §6.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2023 · leading case:
Ex Parte Randall, 971 So. 2d 652 (Ala. 2007).
Ex Parte Randall, 971 So. 2d 652 (Ala. 2007).
· cites it 6× “If the duty to examine the "records of the facility" under § 38-7-6, as part of the overall investigative effort, was a particular task prescribed by statute, then Randall's failure to perform it would not be protected by category (3) immunity.”
Hernandez v. Dep't of Human Resources of Alabama, 971 So. 2d 652 (Ala. 2007).
· cites it 4× “If the duty to examine the “records of the facility” under § 38-7-6, as part of the overall investigative effort, was a particular task prescribed by statute, then Randall’s failure to perform it would not be protected by category (3) immunity.”
— Ala. Code § 38-7-6(a) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 38-7-6(b) — 3 cases
Ex Parte Randall, 971 So. 2d 652 (Ala. 2007).
“If the duty to examine the "records of the facility" under § 38-7-6, as part of the overall investigative effort, was a particular task prescribed by statute, then Randall's failure to perform it would not be protected by category (3) immunity.”
Hernandez v. Dep't of Human Resources of Alabama, 971 So. 2d 652 (Ala. 2007).
“If the duty to examine the “records of the facility” under § 38-7-6, as part of the overall investigative effort, was a particular task prescribed by statute, then Randall’s failure to perform it would not be protected by category (3) immunity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.