Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ANTONIO AND CARMEN DELVALLE vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 96-000272 (1996)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 96-000272 Visitors: 20
Petitioner: ANTONIO AND CARMEN DELVALLE
Respondent: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
Judges: DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
Agency: Department of Children and Family Services
Locations: Orlando, Florida
Filed: Jan. 10, 1996
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, May 31, 1996.

Latest Update: Dec. 02, 1996
Summary: Whether the Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster home care for dependent children should be approved or denied.Petitioners sincere but do not have skills or knowledge needed to be successful foster parents; Application denied.
96-0272

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


ANTONIO AND CARMEN DELVALLE, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 96-0272

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


On April 25 , 1996, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Orlando, Florida, before Daniel M. Kilbride, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Antonio Delvalle pro se

Carmen Delvalle pro se 7933 Toler Court

Orlando, Florida 32822


For Respondent: Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801


STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE


Whether the Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster home care for dependent children should be approved or denied.


PRELIMINARY STATEMENT


The Petitioners applied for a license to provide foster home care with the Respondent. Following review, their application was denied by letter dated October 20, 1995. Petitioners timely filed a request for a formal administrative hearing and this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 6, 1995. This matter was set for hearing by the prior Hearing Officer, but was continued due to a death in the family of Respondent's counsel. This case was then rescheduled and subsequently transferred to the undersigned Hearing Officer and the hearing was held.


At the hearing, each of the Petitioners testified in their own behalf, but offered no additional evidence. Respondent offered the testimony of two witnesses, Ingrid L McKinney, Senior Program Analyst for HRS; and Marlene M. Richmond, Licensing Administrator for HRS; and one composite exhibit was

admitted in evidence. The hearing was recorded but not transcribed. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law.


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. Petitioners applied for licensure from Respondent as a Family Foster Home in 1995; the application was subsequently amended to a Therapeutic Foster Home.


  2. Respondent began the preparation of the Family Portfolio and Petitioners began Pre-Service Training.


  3. Petitioners attended and completed the required 21 hours of pre-service training for prospective foster family parents, called Group Preparation and Selection, GPS-MAPP. on June 12, 1995.


  4. Petitioner Carmen Delvalle also attended and completed a 40 hour pre- service training for prospective medical foster parents.


  5. During this time, in anticipation of being licensed, Petitioners made modifications to their home and purchased furniture that would accommodate the placement of foster children.


  6. Respondent, in preparing the Petitioners' Family Portfolio, determined that Petitioners had previously been licensed in Westchester County, New York, as foster parents from May 1987 through December 1988. The inquiry with the county Foster Home Resource Unit revealed that Petitioners' home was closed by mutual decision between Petitioners and the county Department of Social Services. The Department would not recommend that Petitioners be relicensed based on the appearance that Mrs. Delvalle was overwhelmed by the needs of foster children, which resulted in frequent relocation of children placed in her care, and appeared to be unable to understand and cope with the needs of typical foster children.


  7. Petitioner Carmen Delvalle testified that Petitioners' termination as foster parents in New York was not due to being overwhelmed by the needs of the children. Rather, it was due to the fact that Petitioners were housed in a walk-up apartment and their neighbors were constantly complaining about the noise the children would make. In addition, they received very little support and training from the Department of Social Services, and the Department was constantly placing 5 and 6 children in her home when they were only licensed to care for three children at a time.


  8. Petitioners now feel that they are better prepared to serve as foster parents because they both love children; their own children are now adults and they can give a lot of time and attention to any foster children placed in their home; they are better qualified and trained now, and can deal with the special demands of caring for foster children and medically challenged foster children.


  9. The Respondent's Senior Program Analyst prepared the Family Portfolio for the Petitioners, which included two in-home interviews. She was also Petitioners' MAPP trainer. Her evaluation of the Petitioners' application was that they did not meet the standards of Respondent, as set forth in Chapter 10M- 6, Florida Administrative Code, because of her concern that Petitioners could not cope with the stresses of being a foster parent seven days a week, twenty- four hours a day.

  10. Respondent's Licensing Administrator Marlene Richmond reviewed the completed Family Portfolio pertaining to the Petitioners and called for a staffing review of their file. She also interviewed Petitioner and determined that, although sincere, Petitioners did not exhibit an understanding of the training they received. They also could not articulate how they would respond to the pressures they would be under once a foster child was placed in their home. In her opinion, Petitioners did not meet the standards.


  11. Petitioners are caring, sincere people who wish to offer themselves and their home for the care of children in need of foster care. Petitioners' house meets the physical standards set out by Respondent, and the Petitioners have completed the required pre-service training. However, Petitioners have not articulated an understanding or exhibited the capability to take on the "role" to be successful foster parents.


  12. Petitioners do not meet the standards for licensure as foster home or a medical foster home.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


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


  14. Section 409.175, Florida Statutes (1995) governs the licensing of family foster homes. The purpose of this section is to protect the health, safety, and well-being of all children in the state who are cared for by family foster homes by providing for licensing requirements for such homes and providing procedures for adherence to those requirements.


  15. Pursuant to Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, failure to meet the minimum standard level of compliance in the adopted licensing rules, as outlined in Chapter 10M-6, Florida Administrative Code, is grounds for denial of a license to operated a family foster home.


  16. As a condition of licensure, prospective foster parents are required to complete a minimum of 21 hours of training. The training program selected for prospective foster family parents is the Group Preparation and Selection, GPS-MAPP. Section 409.175(13)(a), Florida Statutes and Rule 10M-6.6.017, Florida Administrative Code.


  17. The MAPP program provides a structured format through which prospective parents can be prepared to work with Respondent's staff as team members in permanency planning. The program is designed to include a home study process along with the parent preparation work. The goal of the program is to prepare individuals and families to make an informed decision about becoming a foster family. The decision is made with the Respondent and is based on the capability and willingness to take on the "role" and develop the skills needed to foster, pursuant to Rule 10M-6.023, Florida Administrative Code.


  18. Prospective foster home parents are required to understand their role and responsibilities, as set forth in Rule 10M-6.024, Florida Administrative Code, and must meet the minimum standards for licensure of a family foster home, as set forth in Rule 10M-6.025, Florida Administrative Code.


  19. Although Petitioners are sincere and caring individuals and have met most of the minimum standards, particularly in regard to stable marriage,

sufficient income, and physical facilities and safety, they have failed to demonstrate that they have the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to take on the arduous task of caring for foster children placed in their care on a seven day a week, 24 hour a day basis.


RECOMMENDATION


Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a final order DENYING Petitioners' application for licensure as a foster home for dependent children.


DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.



DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 31st day of May, 1996.


COPIES FURNISHED:


Antonio Delvalle pro se Carmen Delvalle pro se 7933 Toler Court

Orlando, Florida 32822


Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801


Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700


Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS


All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case concerning their 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.


Docket for Case No: 96-000272
Issue Date Proceedings
Dec. 02, 1996 Final Order filed.
May 31, 1996 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 04/25/96.
Apr. 25, 1996 CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Mar. 28, 1996 Order Continuing and Rescheduling Final Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 4/25/96; 9:30am; Orlando)
Mar. 25, 1996 Respondent`s Motion for Continuance filed.
Feb. 08, 1996 Notice of Video Hearing sent out. (Video Hearing set for 3/26/96; 9:30am; Orlando & Talla)
Jan. 29, 1996 Respondent`s Response to Initial Order filed.
Jan. 18, 1996 Initial Order issued.
Jan. 10, 1996 Notice; Request for Hearing, Letter Form; Agency Action ltr. filed.

Orders for Case No: 96-000272
Issue Date Document Summary
Nov. 25, 1996 Agency Final Order
May 31, 1996 Recommended Order Petitioners sincere but do not have skills or knowledge needed to be successful foster parents; Application denied.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer