STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RAHYA MONTOURI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 81-2903

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal administrative hearing was conducted in this matter on February 24, 1982, in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Timothy

1. Laubach, Orlando, Florida, appeared on behalf of Sheltered Community Residence, Inc.; and Rahya Montouri appeared on her own behalf. By letter dated October 7, 1981, Sheltered Community Residence, Inc. ("Provider" hereafter), gave notice to Rahya Montouri that it had decided to release her son from a group home maintained by the Provider. Mrs. Montouri requested a formal administrative hearing. The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services forwarded the matter to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the scheduling of a hearing. The formal hearing was scheduled as set out above by notice dated December 28, 1981. At the outset of the hearing, Mrs. Montouri requested a continuance so that she could have an opportunity to retain counsel to assist her. The motion was denied on the record at the hearing on the grounds that Mrs. Montouri had been aware of the pendency of the hearing for some time, and had taken no steps to obtain legal assistance for it.

   
   

   The Provider called the following witnesses: Rahya Montouri; Cristy Ann Hitchcock, a social worker employed with Developmental Services at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; Dana R. Taylor, the Provider's Director of Programming; Robert W. Ritz, the District Program Supervisor for Developmental Services at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; Alice L. Lipsey, the mother of a person who is housed at a group residential facility maintained by the Provider; Robert C. Johnson, the father of an individual who is housed at a group residential facility maintained by the Provider; Jay Staten, a behavior specialist employed by the Provider; Charles John Schwartz, a residential program supervisor employed by the Provider; Alicia Prado, a behavior specialist employed by the Provider; and Doris S. Clair, an assistant residential administrator employed by the Provider. Mrs. Montouri testified as a witness on her own behalf and called the following additional witnesses: Irene H. Davis, the Chairman of the Human Rights Advocacy Committee for Retardation; and Margaret Terry, the grandmother of an individual who is housed at a group residential facility maintained by the Provider. Provider Exhibits, which have been designated "SCRI Exhibits", numbered 1, 2 and 3 were received into evidence. Mrs. Montouri's Exhibits, which have been designated "Client Exhibits", numbered 1 through 4 and 6 through 8 were offered into evidence and received. Client Exhibit 5 was offered into evidence and rejected.

   Client Exhibit 8 consists of various prescriptions and receipts for drugs.

   While these were identified during the course of the hearing, they were retained by Mrs. Montouri so that copies of them could be made. Subsequently, they were forwarded, along with numerous other documents. The prescriptions and receipts, and the other documents have been together placed into an envelope and identified as Client Exhibit 8. The issue in this proceeding is whether "Title XX funded social services" should continue to be provided to Mrs. Montouri's son at a group residential facility maintained by the Provider.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Jules Montouri is a retarded adult. Rahya Montouri is his mother. Prior to March, 1980, Jules Montouri resided at a facility maintained by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Gainesville, Florida. Jules Montouri's mental capacity is retarded to an extent that he will never be able to completely care for himself and meet his own needs. He can, however, with proper training become capable of living a somewhat normal life with minimal supervision.

      
      

   2. Since March, 1980, Jules Montouri has resided at "Hillcrest House." Hillcrest House is an adult group residential facility maintained by the Provider, Sheltered Community Residence, Inc. The Provider is under contract with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to provide a residential educational setting for retarded adult males. The concept of the program offered by the Provider is to move clients out of heavily restricted institutional environments into less restrictive ones. The program is designed to train clients to meet as many of their own needs as they can, and to gradually move them into less and less restrictive living situations. The Provider has sought to teach Jules Montouri to live in harmony in a minimally supervised environment, and to do his own cleaning and cooking. The Provider's goal with respect to Jules Montouri would be to move him into an apartment-type living facility with several other retarded adult males with a minimal degree of supervision. The Provider's program is an appropriate one for Jules Montouri. Except for problems that have developed between the Provider and Rahya Montouri, the program offered by the Provider would have a reasonable prospect of successfully training Jules Montouri to live in a substantially independent manner.

      
      

   3. Rahya Montouri disagrees with the goal of the Provider's program to steer Jules Montouri toward a level of substantial independence. She has objected to programs designed to train Jules Montouri for marginal employment, and to programs designed to teach him how to cook for himself. While Rahya Montouri maintains that she wants her son to remain as a resident in the Hillcrest House facility, she has found very little but fault with the program. Since Jules Montouri has been a client of the Provider, Rahya Montouri has complained on a constant basis about virtually every aspect of the Provider's program. She visits her son often at the facility, and has complained verbally to staff members on virtually every visit. She has made many complaints through telephone conversations with members of the staff. She has written numerous letters to complain about the facility, the program, other clients, and the staff. For example, she has expressed suspicion that her son has engaged in homosexual conduct and has implied that members of the staff may have been involved. These suspicions and accusations appear to have been based upon no evidence whatever.

   4. Mrs. Montouri's antagonistic attitude toward the Provider's program has become disruptive to the program. The Provider's staff at the Hillcrest facility has spent from five to ten hours per week since Jules Montouri has been a client dealing with complaints from Mrs. Montouri. On at least two occasions, Mrs. Montouri has violated the rights of other clients at the facility by going through their belongings looking for items that she asserted had been taken from her son. Mrs. Montouri's antagonism toward the program has affected the ability of Jules Montouri to participate in it. Jules is caught in the unfortunate cross fire between the program and his mother. As can be expected, it has confused him considerably. Recently, he has told several of the Provider's staff members and social workers from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services that he wishes to leave the program.

      
      

   5. Mrs. Montouri has complained to the Human Rights Advocacy Committee for Retardation. This committee is a group of volunteers who serve to investigate potential emotional, psychological, or sexual abuse of clients. Mrs. Montouri's complaints have resulted in investigations by the Human Rights Advocacy Committee of the Provider's program. The investigations have not revealed any instances of actual abuse. The investigations have, however, had a demoralizing effect upon the staff of the Provider's program, and could seriously damage the program's reputation.

      
      

   6. Mrs. Montouri's antagonistic attitude toward the Provider's program has become abusive. The time that the Provider's staff has had to devote to her complaints is unjustified. Her antagonistic attitude has rendered it difficult for her son to progress in the program. Her complaints have demoralized the program's staff and could eventually injure the program's reputation. While the program offered by the Provider is an appropriate one for Jules Montouri and could serve to prepare him to live the most normal life possible for him, it is not practical that he continue in the program.

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

   7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

      
      

   8. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Rule 10- 10.03(2), Florida Administrative Code, sets out justifications for termination of Title XX funded services. The rule provides:

      
      

      The reasons for action by the Department or the provider to terminate, suspend, or reduce services may include, but not be limited to, the following:

      
      

      (c) The recipient has become abusive toward the services provider or toward other recipients and, under specific program guidelines of the Department or the provider, services are terminated.

      
      

      Mrs. Montouri's antagonism toward the Provider's program, interference with the rights of other clients, and the resulting desire on the part of her son to leave the program justify terminating Jules Montouri from the program.

   9. Removing Jules Montouri from the Provider's program does not change the fact that he continues to be entitled to receive Title XX funded services. It is appropriate that he be placed in another program which is either in harmony with his mother's concepts of what is appropriate for him, or is sufficiently geographically isolated from his mother so that she is not able to interfere on a constant basis. While efforts are made to place Jules Montouri in such a program, it is appropriate that he continue to reside at the Provider's facility.

      
      

   10. Jules Montouri has continued in the Provider's program during the pendency of this proceeding. Under Rule 10-10.03(4)(b)7, Florida Administrative Code, the Department has the authority to recover the costs for the continued provision of services during such an interim period. Such recovery of costs is not justified in this case.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby,

RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sustaining the termination of Title XX funded services by Sheltered Community Residence, Inc., to the client Jules Montouri; placing the client in another suitable program within a reasonable time; and allowing the client to remain at the facility maintained by Sheltered Community Residence, Inc., until he is placed in another suitable program.

RECOMMENDED this 26 day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26 day of March, 1982.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mrs. Rahya Montouri

633 Lake Dot Circle, Apt. 811

Orlando, Florida 32801

Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire Livingston & Laubach, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802

Douglas E. Whitney, Esquire District VII Legal Counsel Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

400 West Robinson Street Suite 912

Orlando, Florida 32801

Mr. David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 81-002903

Orders for Case No: 81-002903