STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MR. & MRS. STEVEN PRICE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-5285

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this case was held on February 22, 1990, in Tampa, Florida, before Donald D. Conn, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Steven Price, pro se

1403 Shadow Creek Place Brandon, FL 33510

For Respondent: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire

W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo

5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, FL 33614

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Respondent) should issue a license to operate a foster home to Mr. & Mrs. Steven Price (Petitioners).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At the hearing, Steven Price testified on behalf of the Petitioners, and the Respondent called Edward McBride, Carol Grasso, Olga M. Peterson, Cubie Moore and Ann Hipson. Two exhibits were received on behalf of the Petitioners, and three joint exhibits were also admitted. Official recognition was taken of Section 409.175(8)(b), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10M-6, Florida Administrative Code.

No transcript of the final hearing was filed. The parties were given ten days following the hearing to file their proposed recommended orders, including proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each timely filed proposed finding of fact is included in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about April 19, 1989, the Petitioners applied to the Respondent for a foster home license, and on or about July 12, 1989, the Respondent denied their application for licensure. The Petitioners timely sought this hearing to determine if their application for a foster home license should be approved.

   
   

2. After investigation and review of their application, the Respondent informed the Petitioners, by letter dated July 12, 1989, that their application was denied due to insufficient income, harassment of a prior ward, the exercise of poor judgement involving their prior ward in misrepresenting to that child that her grandmother had died as an inducement for her to return home, and the fact that their ward had become pregnant by their son while living in their home.

   
   

3. At hearing, the Petitioners admitted that their previous ward had become pregnant by their son while living with them, and while under their care and custody. They also admitted that they had exercised poor judgement by telling that child that her grandmother had died as an inducement for her to return home after she had run away. They also essentially admitted that they had continually and persistently attempted to contact the ward through foster parents with whom she had been placed after she ran away from the Petitioners' home, and through others with whom they believed she was living. Their efforts were unrelenting and desperate, and eventually culminated in the misrepresentation about the death of the ward's grandmother, with whom she had been particularly close. From their testimony at hearing, it is evident that Petitioners harassed the foster parents with whom their prior ward had been placed in their unrelenting efforts to return her to their home.

   
   

4. The only factor identified by the Respondent in its denial of the Petitioners' application which was actively contested at hearing was Petitioners' apparent lack of sufficient income. In their application, the Petitioners indicated that their monthly income was $1,169 and at hearing they testified that this amount had increased to $1,272. No corroborating evidence was introduced for either amount. Petitioners have four children, ages 14 to 17, living at home with them. Thus, their stated income must support a total of six persons. They estimated their monthly expenses to be $851, including $562 for a home mortgage and $289 for utilities. No corroborating evidence was introduced to support this estimate of their expenses. However, using their estimate of expenses and their revised statement of income, the Petitioners are claiming to have only $421 each month in excess income for food, medical bills, clothing, and other expenses for six persons. They are also receiving food stamps valued at $180 per month. Thus, their excess income plus food stamps equals $601 per month to provide food, medical care and clothing for six persons.

   
   

5. Petitioners offered no credible explanation of how they could provide food, clothing and medical care for six persons on $601 per month. They were repeatedly asked to clarify how they were able to meet the essential needs of their children, as well as themselves, on this amount, but would only state that they have learned how to get by and manage on their limited income. While it may be possible to feed, clothe, and provide medical care to four teenagers and two adults for an average of $100 per month, it is not likely, and without corroborating evidence of the methods and means whereby Petitioners have accomplished this, their unsupported assertions lack credibility when weighed against practical realities and common sense.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties, and the subject matter in this cause. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. As the applicant for a license, the Petitioners have the burden of proof in this case. Florida Department of Tranportation J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

   
   

7. Rule 10M-6.005(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows:

   
   

   (e) Foster parent applicants shall have sufficient income to assure that (sic) stability and security of their own family without reliance on board payments.

   (i) Foster parents shall provide for the religious, medical, educational, psychological and ethical development of the foster child.

   
   

8. Petitioners have failed to establish that they have sufficient income to assure the stability, security, and medical well-being of their own family without reliance on foster care board payments. Their mere assertion that they have been able to get by, without corroboration, does not sustain their burden of proof.

   
   

9. Common sense and practical realities make their assertion that six persons can be provided with food, clothing and medical care for $601 per month appear unlikely, and the petitioners' unwillingness to offer direct evidence in support of their assertion at hearing when confronted with the apparent unlikeliness of their position, confirms their lack of credibility. In addition, while they are apparently entitled to $180 per month in food stamps, this fact alone is sufficient to establish that they do not have sufficient income to provide for the support of their own family, and require public assistance to meet their own basic needs. When a foster home license contains apparent irregularities and concealments, the applicants fail to meet their burden of showing that they meet all criteria for licensure because their application does not provide a full disclosure of all relevant information upon which a proper evaluation and assessment of their application can be made. Burnette v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 FALR 3138 (DHRS 1986).

   
   

10. It is not disputed that while under their care and supervision, a minor ward became pregnant by their son, and ran away. They then harassed a foster family in whose custody that ward had been placed in a constant, desperate attempt to have her return to their home. Finally, they misrepresented to the ward that her grandmother had died in an effort to induce her to return to their home. These additional factors establish that reasonable concerns exist regarding the ability of Petitioners to provide for the psychological, religious and ethical development of foster children who may be placed in their care and Petitioners offered no evidence at hearing to address these concerns.

    
    

11. Based upon the evidence at hearing, as well as the demeanor of Petitioners, it is concluded that the petitioners have failed to meet the requirements for licensure set forth above, and therefore, their application for foster home licensure should be denied. Section 409.175(8)(b), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioners' application for a foster home license be DENIED.

DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida.

DONALD D. CONN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1990.

APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 89-5285)

Petitioners did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact:

1. Adopted in Finding 1.

2. Adopted in Findings 2, 4 and 5. 3-5. Adopted in Finding 3.

5-7. Rejected since these are conclusions of law rather than proposed findings of fact.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. & Mrs. Steven Price 1403 Shadow Creek Place Brandon, FL 33510

Jack Emory Farley, Esquire

W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo

5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, FL 33614

R. S. Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700

Docket for Case No: 89-005285

Orders for Case No: 89-005285