An administrative hearing was conducted in this proceeding on March 3, 1997, in Brooksville, Florida, before Daniel Manry, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.
Department of Children and Families 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785
The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should revoke Respondent's license to operate a foster home for dependent children.
On October 18, 1996, Petitioner notified Respondent that her license to operate a foster home for dependent children was revoked. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing.
witnesses and submitted 10 exhibits for admission in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of 9 witnesses and submitted
12 exhibits for admission in evidence.
The identity of the witnesses and exhibits, and the rulings regarding each, are set forth in the record of the formal hearing. Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order ("PRO"). Respondent timely filed her PRO on March 26, 1997.
Petitioner is the state agency responsible for issuing licenses to operate foster homes for dependent children. Petitioner also prosecutes license discipline proceedings.
Respondent is the maternal aunt of three female children, Deanna, Angelique, and Antoinette. Respondent is a retired teacher. She worked for the state of New York before she moved to Florida. She also receives Social Security payments.
Prior to 1990, Respondent's three nieces lived with their biological parents in the state of New York. New York adjudicated the children dependent and assigned the children to the foster care of Respondent. The three nieces were approximately 5, 7, an 8 years old.
New York paid Respondent $2,100 a month to provide foster care for the three children. New York pays a monthly board rate of $700 per child.
Petitioner agreed to supervise Respondent's foster care on behalf of New York. On March 12, 1992, Petitioner and
Respondent entered into an Agreement To Provide Foster Care For Dependent Children ("Foster Care Agreement").
Each Foster Care Agreement provided, in relevant part:
We will not give the child into the care or physical custody of any other person(s) . . . without the consent of a representative of the Department.
* * *
We will notify the Department immediately of any change in our address, . .
. living arrangements, family composition, or law enforcement involvement.
* * *
We will comply with all requirements for a licensed foster care home as prescribed by the Department.
* * *
This child is placed in our home on a temporary basis and is at all times under the supervision and control of the Department.
We are fully and directly responsible to the Department for the care of the child.
We will take no action to acquire legal custody or guardianship of the child.
* * *
The Department may remove the child from our home at any time but will, whenever possible, give us at least two weeks notice.
Until May 2, 1995, Respondent provided foster care for her three nieces without incident. Respondent was a loving and caring foster parent while the children were young. The children regarded Respondent as their mother.
On April 25, 1995, Petitioner increased Respondent's licensed capacity for the period May 2, 1995, through May 1, 1996, to five children. Petitioner assigned two Florida foster children to Respondent.
Petitioner paid Respondent $592 a month to provide foster care for the two Florida children. Florida pays a monthly board rate of $296 for each child.
Problems developed in the foster home due to overcrowding. Tiffany, one of the two Florida foster children, had an infant child.
Tiffany did not maintain good hygiene for herself or her child. Tiffany neglected her child. The additional parenting responsibilities fell on Respondent.
Petitioner reduced the overcrowding by removing the two Florida foster children. Petitioner removed Tiffany and her child on December 8, 1995, and removed the second foster care child as soon as the school year ended.
Other problems persisted in the foster home separate and apart from the problem of overcrowding. The three nieces were growing up and were beginning to manifest problems from unresolved childhood issues.
Each niece had unresolved issues that presented very difficult parenting problems. As the nieces grew older, Respondent did not have the parenting skills necessary to parent her three nieces.
Deanna's unresolved issues are illustrative. Deanna weighed under four pounds at birth. The mother was a cocaine addict throughout the gestational period. There was some fetal distress related to withdrawal.
Deanna was always irritable. She had a very low frustration tolerance. She had frequent tantrums in which she would throw, spit, and hit her siblings and Respondent.
Deanna had been treated with various medications. They included Ritalin, Depakote, Dexedrine, and Clonidine.
The other two nieces presented Respondent with similar parenting problems. They hit Respondent when they did not get their way, frequently lied, and stole items from home and school.
The problems presented by the three nieces would have been difficult enough to deal with for the best of parents. However, Respondent practiced inappropriate parenting techniques.
Respondent used excessive corporal punishment to discipline all of her foster children. She practiced humiliation tactics on her oldest niece.
Respondent gave preferential treatment to the youngest niece. Respondent arbitrarily allowed the youngest niece to have privileges denied to the other nieces.
Respondent routinely gave the youngest niece excessive amounts of money for nominal tasks. For example, Respondent paid the youngest niece $100 for two hours work around the house.
Respondent manages her own money poorly. Her income is insufficient to cover her expenditures. She is evasive and vague about her finances.
Respondent became depressed and withdrawn. She remained non-verbal with lengthy periods of silence. She stared at the wall.
When counselors and case workers confronted Respondent regarding her depression, she became very angry and agitated. She retreated into denial and relied on adolescent responses to distance herself from those trying to help her and her nieces.
Petitioner conducted a critical case review on June 28, 1996. Petitioner provided numerous intervention services for Respondent and her nieces from July through November, 1996.
Petitioner provided counseling through The Harbor Mental Health Services ("Harbor"). Respondent and her three nieces attended group therapy at Harbor. In addition, each niece participated in individual counseling at Harbor.
Petitioner provided an Intensive Crisis Counseling Program ("ICCP") for Respondent. ICCP is an intense in-home counseling program over six weeks. It is designed to prevent removal of foster children from the home.
Petitioner extended the ICCP in Respondent's home for an additional six weeks. Petitioner provided psychological evaluations to determine if Respondent was suicidal or suffered from alcoholism.
The evaluations found no evidence of either problem. Therapists attempted to assist the individual family members toward effective communication, establishing boundaries, reasonable consequences, and consistent discipline.
The intervention services provided by Petitioner were unsuccessful. Respondent and her nieces persisted in their inappropriate behavior.
Petitioner issued a provisional license to Respondent for the period August 2, 1996, through November 2, 1996. The license required weekly visits by a foster care counselor.
Petitioner conducted a routine home visit on September 26, 1996. The situation had not improved. On October 4, 1996, Petitioner conducted another critical case review.
At the critical case review, the foster care counselor learned from members of the ICCP team that Respondent planned to leave Florida to visit New York. On October 10, 1996, the foster care counselor telephoned Respondent. Respondent confirmed that she was leaving for New York on October 11, 1996.
When the foster care counselor asked Respondent to provide the location of her three nieces and the identity of the respite caregiver during Respondent's absence, Respondent stated only that she was leaving the nieces with her mother.
Respondent told the foster care counselor that if Petitioner wanted to see her nieces while Respondent was in New York, the foster care counselor should telephone Respondent's home and leave a message on Respondent's voice mail. Respondent's mother would check the messages each day and return the case worker's telephone call. Respondent's manner and tone were abrupt, cryptic, abrasive, and angry.
The foster care counselor was unable to obtain any further information. Respondent terminated the telephone call.
Respondent violated several requirements of each Foster Care Agreement. Respondent allowed the removal of each niece
from her home by someone other than Petitioner's representatives. Respondent gave each foster child into the care or physical custody of another without the consent of Petitioner. Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with adequate notice of any change in the living arrangements or family composition of the foster children.
Respondent's mother was not, and never has been, an authorized foster care parent or respite caregiver. Respondent did not consent to Respondent giving her nieces to the physical care and custody of Respondent's mother. Respondent did not give Petitioner the information needed for Petitioner to adequately supervise the foster children during Respondent's absence.
Petitioner determined that it could no longer supervise Respondent's foster care on behalf of New York. Petitioner ascertained the location of the foster children.
On October 17, 1996, Petitioner removed the nieces from the home of Respondent's mother. Petitioner returned the nieces to the appropriate authorities in New York.
By letter dated, October 17, 1996, Petitioner notified Respondent of the action taken. The letter also notified Respondent that the foster care home was closed and that Respondent's license was being revoked.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. The parties were duly noticed for the administrative hearing.
Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding. Petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to effectively supervise and safeguard her home for children. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
Petitioner satisfied its burden of proof. Respondent violated the terms of her Foster Care Agreements with Petitioner.
Respondent allowed the removal of foster children from the foster home by someone other than Petitioner's representatives. Respondent gave each foster child into the care or physical custody of another without Petitioner's consent. Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with adequate notice of any change in the living arrangements or family composition of the foster children.
Respondent violated the requirements for a licensed foster home. Respondent violated Petitioner's discipline policy by using excessive corporal punishment to discipline her nieces.
Respondent utilized inappropriate parenting techniques to address very complex and difficult behavioral problems of the nieces. Respondent was depressed, withdrawn, angry, and hostile. She refused to acknowledge and address the problems that made the foster home dysfunctional.
Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk
Department of Children and Families 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785
Yvonne B. Butler, Esquire 6341 Gainsboro Avenue Spring Hill, Florida 34609
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
