vs. ) CASE NO. 92-5556
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on January 27, 1993, in Fort Myers, Florida.
For Respondent: Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire
Whether the Petitioners' application for relicensure of their foster home should be approved.
By letter dated August 11, 1992, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") informed Charles and Linda Grillo ("Grillos") that their application for relicensure to operate a foster home was denied. In the letter, the DHRS cited specific violations of the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code which the agency asserted warranted denial of the application. The Grillos requested a formal administrative hearing. The DHRS forwarded the request to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings.
At the hearing, the Grillos presented the testimony of twelve witnesses and offered into evidence sixteen exhibits. Respondent presented the testimony of five witnesses and offered into evidence seven exhibits. All exhibits were admitted into evidence.
By motion filed January 25, 1993, the DHRS requested that the undersigned Hearing Officer take official notice of the Final Order in Division of Administrative Hearings Case #92-3296. Without objecting, the request was granted.
No transcript of the hearing was filed. Neither party filed a proposed recommended order.
At all times material to this case, Charles and Linda Grillo ("Grillos") operated a foster home licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS").
The DHRS is the state agency charged with responsibility for licensure of foster parents and foster homes and with regulating and enforcing the standards of care of children placed in such foster homes.
The Grillos were first licensed as a foster home in 1989 and have been relicensed annually until, by letter dated August 11, 1992, the DHRS informed that the Grillos that their foster home would not be relicensed. The letter identified the specific grounds for the agency's decision.
Prior to licensure as a foster parent, and annually thereafter, the DHRS requires that each person execute a document entitled "Agreement to Provide Foster Care for Dependent Children." The Grillos executed the document for all years during which they were licensed.
Paragraph number 7 of the agreement provides that the foster parents "will cooperate in arrangements made by the Department for visits with the child by his parent(s) or other relative(s)."
Paragraph number 8 of the agreement provides that the foster parents "will cooperate with the Department in plans for the child, such as adoption placement, transfer to another foster home, or return to parent(s) or other relative(s)."
Paragraph number 9 of the agreement provides that the foster parents "will accept dependent children into our home for care only from the Department and will make no plans for boarding other children or adults."
Paragraph number 10 of the agreement provides that the foster parents "will accept...board payment per month on behalf of the child in accordance with the Department's established payment schedule for dependent children."
One of the reasons cited by the DHRS for the decision to deny the Grillos relicensure as a foster home was their "[f]ailure to timely inform HRS that a foster child (T.F., DOB: 11/3/87) had an accident and was taken to an emergency room for examination and treatment."
On September 25, 1991, a foster child residing with the Grillos received minor scrapes when attempting to close an automobile door. The Grillos took the child to the emergency room for examination, but the examination revealed no serious trauma.
On the evening of the incident and on subsequent days, Mrs. Grillo made repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact Mary Nunley (the child's case worker) at her office and her home in order to let an agency representative know about the incident. Mrs. Grillo left messages requesting that Ms. Nunley return the call, however the messages did not make clear the reason for the calls and did not indicate that the foster child had been injured and taken to the hospital.
On October 17, 1991, Ms. Nunley visited the Grillos home and noticed that T.F.'s face was discolored as if it had been injured. Ms. Nunley inquired as to the cause and was told that the child had fallen on the driveway while closing the car door. Mrs. Grillo also suggested that the child had fallen while learning to swim in an unidentified pool. Ms. Nunley apparently asked no further questions related to the accident.
There is evidence that another foster parent in close contact with Ms. Nunley often spoke, and on the day of the incident or immediately thereafter, informed Ms. Nunley of the injury to the boy. Ms. Nunley does not recall the conversations and testified that she was unaware of the child's examination at the emergency room until after a child neglect report was received and an investigation was initiated.
The evidence fails to establish that the Grillos explicitly disclosed the details of the incident, including the examination at the hospital emergency room, to Ms. Nunley. Mrs. Grillo feared that the children (whom she hoped to adopt) would be removed from her home by the DHRS. The children were, in fact, subsequently removed from their home by a DHRS protective services investigator, apparently based, at least in part, on the failure to fully disclose the details of the accident of September 25.
As further grounds for denial of the relicensure application, the DHRS states that the "[f]oster parents had a poor working relationship with the birth mother of one of their foster children (D.R., DOB: 8/2/89)". Because reunification of children with natural parents is the primary goal of foster care, it is important that licensed foster parents cooperate with the agency's plans for such reunification.
There were instances when, during visitation between the birth mother and the child, the child would be removed from the mother and would be taken by one of the Grillos or their other children. The mother was occasionally denied the opportunity to feed or bathe the child, who she sometimes found in an unclean condition.
On two separate occasions, one of the Grillos asked the birth mother for money, once for diapers and then to pay a utility bill after the Grillos electrical service was cut off.
Although there is no evidence that the Grillos were not focused on what they believed to be the best interests of the child, they became too attached to the child. The Grillos were not cooperative with the child's birth mother and the DHRS plan to reunify the child with the birth mother, despite the fact that the birth mother complied with the requirements of the performance agreement which outlined the objectives which the birth mother was required to meet before the child could be returned and which was designed to permit her an opportunity to regain custody of the child.
The DHRS letter, citing additional support for the denial of the relicensure application, states that "[y]ou allowed your adult son, Charles Grillo, Jr., to return to your home after being advised that you could not continue to be licensed if he resided in your home. In addition you have allowed numerous unrelated individuals to reside in your home without the knowledge and permission of HRS."
The evidence establishes that the Grillos were told that DHRS officials were extremely concerned about the continued residence of their son Charles, Jr., in the home. Charles, Jr., had been involved in personal and legal difficulties which the DHRS asserted were not in the best interest of the foster children residing with the Grillos. There is no evidence which suggest that the DHRS position in the matter was unreasonable.
Although Charles, Jr., initially moved from the residence, he subsequently returned. The Grillos did not notify the DHRS that he had again taken up residence in their home.
The evidence is unclear as to if and when the Grillos were told that their foster home would not continue to be licensed if their son, Charles, Jr., resided in the structure. However, it is reasonable to expect, given the nature of the discussions which clearly did occur, that the Grillos were aware of the DHRS concern. The Grillos have now moved to one half of a duplex apartment, the other half of which will be occupied by their son. This arrangement does not constitute reasonable compliance with the DHRS policy.
The evidence further establishes that the Grillos opened their doors to numerous neighborhood teenagers who were in need of shelter due to family turmoil. The Grillos also permitted an unrelated adult who had been involved in legal difficulties which the DHRS asserted were not in the best interest of the foster children to reside in their household. There is no evidence which suggest that the DHRS position in the matter was unreasonable. The DHRS asserted that their inability to control temporary residents with access to the home and its inhabitants adversely affected the DHRS ability to protect the foster children placed in the home. There is no evidence which suggest that the DHRS position in this matter was unreasonable. Further, the Grillos intend to continue to permit such teenage children to reside in their home when the Grillos see fit to do so.
In the DHRS letter of denial, the agency further noted that "[p]ast circumstances show that there is a significant level of distrust between you and HRS. Constructive communication is difficult, if not impossible. However, it is not possible to fulfill the functions of substitute care parents without a good working relationship with HRS."
There is evidence that a substantial level of mistrust exists between DHRS officials and the Grillos. Witnesses identified instances of miscommunication between the Grillos and the DHRS officials responsible for the foster care program. At hearing, such miscommunication continued to exist and indicates that reestablishment of trust is highly unlikely.
Although the letter denying the application for relicensure cites specific violations of Florida Administrative Code provisions which the agency asserted warranted denial of the application, such rules were generally not in existence at the time of the alleged violations. However, the Grillos have
clearly failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the provisions of the "Agreement to Provide Foster Care for Dependent Children" noted previously herein.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may deny, suspend, or revoke a foster care. Section 409.175(8)(a), Florida Statutes. Section 409.175(8)(b), Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
Any of the following actions by a home or agency or its personnel is a ground for denial, suspension, or revocation of a license:
An intentional or negligent act materially affecting the health or safety of children in the home or agency.
A violation of the provisions of this section or of licensing rules promulgated pursuant to this section.
Noncompliance with the requirements for good moral character as specified in paragraph (4)(a).
Failure to dismiss personnel found in noncompliance with requirements for good moral character.
The DHRS notification of relicensure denial cites the specific licensing rules which the Grillos were alleged to have violated. The rules were promulgated in May, 1992.
Rule 10M-6.024(1)(b)6.c., Florida Administrative Code, provides that it is the responsibility of the foster parent to "inform the counselor of medical and dental treatment of children and keep clear records of these treatments." Rule 10M-6.024(4)(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that it is the responsibility of the foster parent to "notify the department immediately of illness or accidents involving the child." Rule 10M- 6.024(4)(n)1., Florida Administrative Code, provides that it is the responsibility of the foster parent to "notify the department immediately, day or night, if...[a] child requires hospitalization or emergency medical treatment."
Although there is evidence that the Grillos failed to comply with these rules, the Grillos attempted to notify the child's case worker who appears initially to have paid little attention to the incident. Further, the rule was not in effect at the time the relevant incident occurred. There is no evidence as to whether this would have constituted a violation of agency policy at the time the incident occurred.
Rule 10M-6.024(1)(b)6.d., Florida Administrative Code, provides that it is the responsibility of the foster parent to "immediately report to the department any serious changes in the health or mental health of a child."
There is no evidence that there was any serious changes in the health or mental health of any child to whom the Grillos provided foster care.
Rule 10M-6.024(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the foster parent "must present a positive image of and demonstrate respect for the child's own family and must agree to maintain a working relationship with the child's family members as indicated in the performance agreement or permanent placement plan." As set forth in the findings of fact, the Grillos failed to maintain an appropriate working relationship with the birth mother of D.R. Although the rule cited was nonexistent at the time the alleged failure to cooperate occurred, the DHRS goal of reuniting children with natural parents is of long standing. It is important that licensed foster parents cooperate with the agency's plans for such reunification. The Grillos had agreed to do so by execution of the "Agreement to Provide Foster Care for Dependent Children" wherein they agreed to cooperate in arrangements made by the Department for visits with the child by his parent, and agreed to cooperate with the Department in plans for the child including the return of the child to his parent.
Rule 10M-6.024(4)(g), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the foster parent "must notify the department regarding changes which affect the life and circumstances of the shelter or foster family." Although the rule cited was nonexistent at the time of the failure to notify the DHRS of the return of their son, the DHRS clearly informed the Grillos of their concern regarding the son. The Grillos failed to inform the agency that he had returned to their home. Their failure to abide by the agency's request and to inform the agency of the son's return is clear cause for the mistrust felt by agency officials. As to the additional adult and children residing, albeit temporarily, in the Grillo home, the Grillos had agreed by execution of the "Agreement to Provide Foster Care for Dependent Children" to permit no children or adults to be boarded in their home. The Grillos failed to abide by the agreement.
Rule 10M-6.024(4)(j), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[t]he substitute care parents must be able to accept supervision by department staff and participate in and support case plans for children in their homes." The Grillos are unable to trust the DHRS officials who are responsible for the operation of the foster care program. It is likely that, given the circumstances, such officials lack confidence that the Grillos would accept supervision by department staff and participate in and support case plans for foster children.
At hearing, the Grillos indicated that they continued to be concerned about their son's well-being. While such concern is natural, it is likely that given the new living arrangement he will continue to play an important role in the Grillo family. The Grillos also acknowledge that they enjoy assisting troubled neighborhood teenagers and would continue to do so, notwithstanding the agreement executed by the parties. This does not indicate that the Grillos are unable to provide appropriate parenting to children in need. However, the DHRS has reasonable cause to question whether foster placement in this situation would be appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING relicensure of the Grillo Foster Home.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of March, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1993.
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
