STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SAMUEL WRIGHT and RUBY WRIGHT, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 97-5478

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILY SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a Section 120.57(1) hearing was conducted in this case on October 20, 1998, by video teleconference at sites in West Palm Beach and Tallahassee, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Rendell Brown, Esquire

Brown and Marshall

319 Clematis Street, Suite 217 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

For Respondent: Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire

Department of Children and Family Services

111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Petitioners' application for renewal of their family foster home license should be denied on the grounds set forth in the October 17, 1997, letter that they received from the

Department of Children and Family Services (Department). 1/

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated October 17, 1997, the Department advised Petitioners of its intention to deny Petitioners' application for renewal of their family foster home license. The letter read as follows:

The Department of Children and Families regrets to inform you that your foster care license is not being renewed. This decision is based on concerns that the quality of care provided has not met the minimum standards for foster parenting per Florida Statutes

409.175 and FAC 10M-6. These concerns are based upon information provided by Department staff who were responsible for supervising children placed in your home and include:

Lack of interest in children's educational needs. It was reported that you have not assisted children with their homework. One counselor had to intervene to request an extension for a child to complete an assignment that was a big part of his grade. The counselor also had to help the child complete the assignment as the child said no one would help him at home. The school also had to ask the counselor to have you respond back to them about a permission slip for a field trip for this child, after having sent [it] home with no response. Another counselor for a different child reported that the school was concerned because after 4 weeks of school the child still had every paper sent home in that time in his book bag. These children were only 7 & 6 years old and would thus need a good deal of structure and guidance when it comes to their school work.

A general lack of interest in the individual needs of the foster children placed in your home. One counselor reported that instead of letting her know that you did not have a Medicaid card needed to purchase prescribed vitamins for a child you just didn't get them for the child. She learned of this by questioning the child about whether he was

receiving his medication. The counselor for another child stated that you stated there were no problems with a little boy in your home even though the counselor had received information that there had been three incidents in which this child had been caught playing with fire in your home. It is expected that foster parents will follow through on obtaining medications for foster children and alerting the counselor about behaviors that may warrant additional professional assistance. The counselors cannot get the children needed services if they are not made aware of any problems.

Issuance of a Restraining Order against your seventeen year old son, Bertain. A family from your neighborhood petitioned the court for a restraining order against your son Bertain who had been threatening their nephew who resided with them. This boy also happened to be a brother of two of the foster children who were placed in your home at the time. It is of concern due to the lack of supervision of your son and the strain this put on trying to maintain any connection between your foster children and their brother who had to [be] protected by this restraining order.

The Department of Children & Families looks to our foster families to provide a safe nurturing environment for the children placed in their care. They should be made to feel a part of the family. The many concerns brought to the Department's attention indicate that this has not happened.

Please be advised that within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, you may contest the decision of this agency by requesting an administrative hearing, pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act by sending a written request to:

Colleen Farnsworth

Department of Children & Families District Legal Counsel

111 S. Sapodilla Ave. Rm 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

If we do not hear from you within the specified time frame, we will consider this matter resolved and you will forego any further right to appeal.

On November 17, 1997, Petitioners filed a written request for an administrative hearing on the matter. The Department, on November 20, 1997, referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division) for the assignment of a Division administrative law judge to conduct the hearing Petitioners had requested.

As noted above, the hearing was held on October 20, 1998 (following several continuances). At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of four witnesses, Mary Bosco, Vivian Brown, Sheila Clark, and Rebecca Ann Walker, all of whom hold administrative or supervisory positions with the Department. 2/ In addition, it offered, and the undersigned received, eight exhibits (Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 5 and 7 through 9) into evidence. Petitioner Ruby Wright testified on behalf of herself and her husband, Petitioner Samuel Wright. Petitioners presented no other evidence.

At the close of the evidentiary portion of the hearing on October 20, 1998, the undersigned, on the record, advised that Proposed Recommended Orders had to be filed within 20 days. The Department and Petitioners filed their Proposed Recommended Orders on November 9, 1998, and November 12, 1998, respectively. These post-hearing submittals have been carefully considered by the undersigned.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made:

Petitioners' Household

1. Petitioners are husband and wife. They live in a four- bedroom home in Riviera Beach, Florida.

2. Mrs. Wright and her husband have eleventh and twelfth grade educations, respectively.

3. Mr. Wright has been semi-retired for four or five years, and he receives social security payments. To supplement this income, he works on a regular basis as a gardener. Mrs. Wright is a homemaker.

4. Petitioners have six natural children, all of whom are adults and live outside of Petitioners' home.

5. Petitioners also have two adopted children, both of whom live with Petitioners. Their adopted son, Bertain, is 17 years of age. Tracy Michelle, their adopted daughter, is approximately five years younger than Bertain.

6. There are two other current members of Petitioners' household, Tmorris C. and Tavares T., the young sons of one of Petitioners' daughters. Tmorris and Tavares were taken from their mother and placed in Petitioners' custody by the Department in 1996, when Tmorris was approximately 11 months old and Tavares was almost two years of age.

   Petitioners' Record as Family Foster Home Licensees

   
   

7. Petitioners are seeking the renewal of a family foster home license that they were first issued in 1977. In the 19

   years that they operated a licensed family foster home, Petitioners cared for many foster children, including those with special needs. They treated their foster children in the same loving and caring manner that they treated their own children, and provided them with a reasonably safe and nurturing environment.

8. At no time during the period that they operated their family foster home did the Department or its predecessor initiate any action to effect the revocation of Petitioners' license.

9. Petitioners were last relicensed in 1996, pursuant to the recommendation of Jo Ann Weisiger, a Children and Families relicensing counselor who issued the following report after conducting a relicensing home study:

   AGENCY EXPERIENCE

   
   

   Mr. and Mrs. Wright were initially licensed on 09/26/77.

   
   

   COMPOSITION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE HOME

   
   

   The Wrights reside in Riviera Beach, just north of 8th Street, near schools, churches and other health and recreational facilities. Mr. Wright is painting the interior of the house. Current residents of the home are Sam Wright, age 73; Ruby Wright, age 62; adopted daughter, Tracy Michelle Wright, age 10; and son Berta[i]n, 14. There have been no major changes in the household during the past year.

   FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE HOME/QUALITY OF LIFE

   
   

   During the past year, the Wrights have cared for 16 foster children. There are currently

   6 foster children in the home; Julius [H.], 5; Robert [D.], 7; Kenneth [J.], 7; Sheanna [W.], 7; Steven [W.], 6; and Amanda [W.], 4. There have been issues arising concerning

   allegations of physical discipline in the home, but none of these could be substantiated. The children have been appropriately clothed during licensing visits. Mrs. Wright responds to school concerns and transports to medical appointments. During a visit to the home on 3/20/96, the children all responded affectionately to the foster parents, and seemed happy and adequately cared for in this home. The children have been interviewed on two separate occasions and showed no fear of the foster parents, no signs of marks or bruises, and made no statements indicating that they have been spanked. The two older Willis children have severe developmental and emotional problems, and the Wrights have requested that they be replaced as soon as possible. They are difficult to handle, and inappropriately placed in this home.

   EMPLOYMENT/FINACES

   
   

   Mr. Wright is retired and the Wrights receive

   $1600.00 in Social Security and retirement income. They appear to manage their finances adequately.

   
   

   HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE

   
   

   Although Mr. Wright is in his seventies, he is active and involved with the children.

   Sanitation inspection on 2/21/96 was satisfactory.

   
   

   IN-SERVICE TRAINING

   
   

   Both foster parents completed Mini Mapp on 5/17/95. They will have 7 hours in this relicensing period, and attended the MAPP 11 training on 2/20/96 for an additional 3 hours.

   
   

   REFERENCES/SCREENING

   
   

   Local and PBSO law enforcement checks showed no records for the Wrights, and the Abuse Registry check was clear. Mr. Wright has been re-screened for fingerprints, as the original fingerprint records were lost from 1987. There are no new household members.

   No staff inquiries were returned, but there

   have been no major concerns expressed by any of the counselors who visit the home. The concerns about spanking the children have been addressed, and there is no indication that the Wrights are using inappropriate discipline.

   
   

   SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS

   
   

   Relicense for 3 children, school age. Due to Mr. Wright's age, over capacity should be avoided whenever possible.

   
   

10. In early 1996, as part of the license renewal process, Petitioners signed an "Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for

    Dependent Children." In so doing, they agreed to, among other things, the following:

    1. We are fully and directly responsible to the department for the care of the

       child. . . .

       
       

    2. We will accept the above board rate per month [$185.00] on behalf of the child in accordance with the department's established uniform rate structure for dependent children. . . .

       
       

       15. We will comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the department. . . .

       
       

11. Petitioners last had foster children in their home in December of 1996. At that time only three of the six foster children mentioned in Ms. Weisiger's report remained in the home. Sheanna W., Steven W., and Amanda W. had been placed elsewhere at Petitioners' request.

    The Department's Allegations: What the Evidence Shows Specific Allegations in the October 17, 1997, Denial Letter

    Alleged Lack of Interest in Educational Needs

    
    

12. Petitioners took an interest in the educational needs of their foster children.

13. They asked their foster children, on a regular basis, if they had homework and, if the children responded in the affirmative, made sure that the children did their homework. Petitioners themselves did not assist the children in completing homework assignments, but, if the children needed such assistance, Petitioners made arrangements for other members of the family (who were better equipped to provide assistance) to

    help the children.

14. Kenneth J. is the foster child referred to in the second and third sentences of the paragraph of the October 17, 1997, denial letter detailing Petitioners' alleged "[l]ack of interest in [their foster] children's educational needs" (Education Paragraph). If in fact Kenneth told a counselor that Petitioners ignored his request for help in completing the assignment referred to in the second and third sentences of this paragraph, 3/ Kenneth was not being truthful. If Kenneth did not receive any assistance at home on this project, it was only because he did not let Petitioners know that he needed help. He invariably told Petitioners, when asked by them about his homework, either that he had done his homework at school, or that he knew how to do it without anyone's help.

15. The foster child involved in the "permission slip" incident discussed in the fourth sentence of the Education Paragraph was actually Robert D., not Kenneth J. (as the paragraph suggests). Although Robert's teacher may have sent home with him a form for Petitioners to sign to permit Robert to go on a class trip, Robert never presented the form to Petitioners. Instead, he told Mrs. Wright that he had lost the form. Mrs. Wright advised Robert to ask his teacher for another permission slip. The next morning, Robert's teacher telephoned Petitioners and spoke with Mrs. Wright about Robert's failure to hand in a signed permission slip. Mrs. Wright explained to the teacher that Robert had told her that he had lost the permission slip he had been given to take home. The teacher advised Mrs.

    Wright that she would send Petitioners another permission slip for them to sign. Upon receiving this second permission slip, Mrs. Wright signed it and returned it to the teacher, and Robert thus was able to go on the trip.

16. Julius H. is the foster child who, according to the fifth sentence of the Education Paragraph, allegedly had accumulated in his book bag four weeks worth of papers that were "sent home" with him. Julius was in kindergarten at the time. Mrs. Wright actually saw these papers that Julius had brought home from school with him (in his book bag) during this four-week period. After Mrs. Wright removed the papers from the book bag, Julius put them back in the bag, explaining to Mrs. Wright that he needed to keep the papers.

    Alleged General Lack of Interest in Needs of Foster Children

    
    

17. Petitioners made a good faith effort to meet the individual needs of their foster children.

18. Kenneth J. is the foster child referred to in the first and second sentences of the paragraph of the October 17, 1997, denial letter detailing Petitioners' alleged "general lack of interest in the individual needs of the foster children placed in [their] home" (Needs Paragraph). It is true that, at first, Petitioners did not have a Medicaid card for Kenneth, as alleged in this portion of the Needs Paragraph. There is, however, no truth to the assertion that, because they did not have his Medicaid card, Petitioners did not get the vitamins that had been prescribed for Kenneth. In fact, they purchased the vitamins

    with their own funds. Furthermore, Mrs. Wright told Kenneth's counselor, the next time she saw the counselor, that she did not have Kenneth's Medicaid card.

19. Robert D. is the foster child referred to in the third sentence of the Needs Paragraph. Mrs. Wright did in fact learn that Robert had been playing with fire, as this sentence suggests. There, however, was only one such incident (not three) and it occurred, not in the home, but outside of the home in an area where Robert was playing with other children. One of the other children alerted Mrs. Wright, and she went outside to investigate. When she arrived at the scene, the fire was already out. Mrs. Wright spoke with Robert about the matter. He promised not to play with fire again, and he kept his promise. There were no subsequent incidents. Following the incident, Mrs. Wright telephoned Robert's counselor and told the counselor what Robert had done.

    The Restraining Order against Bertain

    
    

20. In August of 1996, Bertain was involved in a dispute with Robert D.'s and Julius H.'s brother, Jessie S., who lived across the street from Petitioners' home. The dispute concerned a girl that Bertain and Jessie both liked. Before the dispute arose, Bertain and Jessie were good friends. The dispute caused a rift in their relationship and it escalated to the point where Jessie's aunt, with whom Jessie has living at the time, sought and obtained (on Jessie's behalf) a restraining order (dated August 26, 1996) against Bertain, which provided as follows:

    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on August 14, 1996 upon Petitioner's application for an Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence pursuant to Section 784.046, Florida Statutes, and it appearing that an immediate and present danger of Repeat Violence exists,

    and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is:

    
    

    1. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent: RUBY WRIGHT O/B/O BERTAIN WRIGHT (MINOR CHILD) is hereby restrained and enjoined from committing any acts of violence, to wit: assault, battery, sexual battery or stalking on the Petitioner:

       ANNA WHITE & ANNA WHITE O/B/O JESSIE [S.](MINOR CHILD)

       or any member of Petitioner's immediate family. The Respondent is restrained from threatening the Petitioner or any member of the Petitioner's immediate family, either directly or indirectly, at any time or place whatsoever.

       
       

    2. Respondent shall not enter on Petitioner's residential premises . . ., or wherever Petitioner may reside in the State of Florida.

       
       

    3. Respondent shall not enter onto Petitioner's place of employment . . ., or wherever Petitioner may be employed in the State of Florida.

       
       

    4. Upon Petitioner's request an officer from an appropriate law enforcement agency shall accompany the Petitioner and assist in the execution of service of the Injunction.

       
       

    5. The following provisions are necessary to protect the Petitioner from Repeat Violence. THE PARTIES SHALL HAVE NO CONTACT IN PERSON, DIRECT OR INDIRET, BY PHONE, BY MAIL, BY THIRD PERSONS, EXCEPT BY COURT ORDER, AT COURT APPEARANCES OR THROUGH ATTORNEYS.

       
       

    6. Any relief granted by this Injunction shall be effective for a period not to exceed

       1. months form the date hereof. The Petitioner may petition the court for extension of provisions of this Injunction prior to the conclusion of the period specified herein.

          
          

    7. The Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this Injunction to the Sheriff with jurisdiction over the residence of the

       Petitioner within twenty-four (24) hours after its entry.

       
       

    8. THIS INJUNCTION IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE IN ALL COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

    
    

    This was the first and last time that Bertain was involved in any legal proceeding concerning his conduct.

21. Bertain's dispute with Jessie did not interfere with Bertain's relationship with Robert and Julius. Bertain continued to get along well with both Robert and Julius, notwithstanding the dispute.

22. Mrs. Wright discussed the subject of the dispute and the resulting restraining order with Mary Bosco, a Department administrator involved in the licensure of family foster homes. During the conversation, Mrs. Wright told Ms. Bosco that she (Mrs. Wright) was doing her "best with Bertain," but she could not go everywhere that Bertain went, a comment that should not be construed to reflect negatively upon Mrs. Wright as a parent. It would be unreasonable to expect a parent to accompany a teenage son the age of Bertain (at the time of Mrs. Wright's conversation with Ms. Bosco) everywhere the son went.

23. There has been no showing that Petitioners have acted irresponsibly in discharging their responsibilities as Bertain's parents.

    Other Specific Allegations

    
    

24. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department asserts that "Petitioners exhibited poor judgment in allowing the children (T. C. [Tmorris] and T. T. [Tavares]) named in F.P.S.S.

    #96-125319 to spend time unsupervised with their mother."

    
    

25. The evidence establishes, however, that when Petitioners (specifically, Mrs. Wright) brought Tmorris and Tavares to visit their mother (which visits the judge in the

    dependency proceeding encouraged), Mrs. Wright remained with the boys for the duration of the visit.

26. The Department also states in its Proposed Recommended Order that "Department counselors had to 'beg' Petitioners to cooperate in providing services to the foster children."

    Although the Department does not identify the children to whom it is making reference, it appears that the Department is referring to Tmorris and Tavares, who technically are not Petitioners' foster children inasmuch as Petitioners are their grandparents and do not receive reimbursement for caring for them. 4/ In any event, the evidence does not support the Department's assertion concerning Petitioners' reluctance to ensure that their grandchildren (while in their care) received needed services.

    Rather, it appears that, when Petitioners became aware of the children's need for services, they acted in a reasonable and responsible manner.

27. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department further alleges that "[a]t one time Petitioner[s] requested that their own grandchildren be removed from their home due to the fact that they were no longer receiving foster care payments for them." Mrs. Wright did initially become upset when she learned that she and her husband would not be receiving any payments from the State for caring for Tmorris and Tavares. She then "thought differently about the matter" and realized that she and her husband had made the right decision in agreeing to assume responsibility for caring for their grandchildren,

    notwithstanding that they would not be paid for doing so.

28. The additional allegation is made in the Department's Proposed Recommended Order that "Petitioners failed to provide appropriate educational and recreational activities for the children [who lived in their home] and lack the capacity to do so." According to the Department, the children spent "the majority of their hours watching television." The evidence, however, reveals otherwise. Petitioners provided the children with bicycles to ride and games to play. They went fishing with them and took them to the park on a regular basis. Whenever Petitioners went to visit relatives, the children accompanied them. Living with Petitioners did not result in the children being deprived of appropriate educational or recreational activities.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

29. With certain exceptions not applicable to the instant case, "a person, family foster home, or residential child-caring agency shall not receive a child for continuing full-time care or custody unless such person, home, or agency has first procured a license from the [D]epartment to do so." Section 409.175(3)(a), Florida Statutes.

30. The Department may deny an application for an initial or renewal family foster home license, or it may suspend or revoke a family foster home license it has already issued, if the applicant or licensee has committed: "[a]n intentional or negligent act materially affecting the health or safety of children in the [applicant's or licensee's] home"; or "[a]

    violation of the provisions of [Section 409.175, Florida Statutes] or of licensing rules promulgated pursuant to this section [which are currently found in Chapter 65C-13.011, Florida Administrative Code]." Section 409.175(8)(b)1 and 2, Florida Statutes.

31. In the instant case, the Department advised Petitioners, by letter dated October 17, 1997, of its intention to deny their application for renewal of their family foster care license "based on concerns [more specifically described in the letter] that the quality of care provided has not met the minimum standards for foster parenting per Florida Statutes 409.175 and FAC 10M-6 [the relevant portions of which have been transferred to Chapter 65C-13, Florida Administrative Code]." Although no specific provisions of either Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 10M-6, Florida Administrative Code, were cited in the Department's October 17, 1997, letter, the Department has taken the position in its Proposed Recommended Order that the denial of Petitioners' relicensure is warranted because of Petitioners' violations of the following specific provisions of Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 65C-13.011, Florida Administrative Code:

    409.175(4)(a) The [D]epartment shall adopt and amend licensing rules for family foster homes . . . . The requirements for licensure and operation of family foster homes . . . shall include: . . .

    
    

    1. The provision of food, clothing, educational opportunities, services, equipment, and individual supplies to assure

       the healthy physical, emotional, and mental development of the children served.

       
       

    2. The appropriateness, safety, cleanliness, and general adequacy of the premises, including fire prevention and health

       standards, to provide for the physical comfort, care, and well-being of the children served.

       
       

       Rule 65C-13.010(1) Responsibilities of the Substitute Parent to the Child.

       
       

       1. General.

          
          

          1. To give love, acceptance, and care to a child without expecting a demonstration of appreciation from the child. . . .

          
          

       2. Family Care Activities.

          
          

          1. Daily living tasks.

          
          

          1. The substitute care parents are expected to provide structure and daily activities designed to promote the individual physical, social, intellectual, spiritual, and emotional development of the children in their home. . . .

             
             

             6. Health Care. . . .

             
             

          2. The substitute care parents are expected to transport children for medical, dental or other appointments which may be needed. . . .

             
             

          3. The substitute care parents must inform the counselor of medical and dental treatment of children, and keep clear records of these treatments. . . .

          
          

          1. . Medicine.

          
          

          a. The substitute care parents must be responsible for dispensing the medication as prescribed by the physician and recording the exact amount of any medication prescribed for a child by a physician or dentist. . . .

          
          

          1. Recreation and community.

             
             

             a. The substitute parents are expected to provide opportunities for recreational activities for the children. The activities must be appropriate to the child's age and abilities. . . .

          2. Education. . . .

          
          

          1. The substitute care parents must participate in the child's school activities, including regular teacher conferences.

             
             

          2. The substitute care parents are expected to keep the counselor informed of educational plans, activities, school problems and the educational progress of the child, and to keep records of the same.

          
          

       3. Substitute Parent Responsibilities.

       
       

       1. Substitute care parents are expected to work cooperatively with the counselor as a member of a treatment team in seeking counseling, participating in consultation, and preparing and implementing the performance agreement or permanent placement plan for each child. . . .

       
       

       3. The substitute care parents are expected to maintain records in accordance with the department's procedures for the children placed in their home. The records must include: . . . .

       
       

       h. School reports, if applicable;

       
       

32. The evidence that the Department presented at hearing to prove that its "quality of care" concerns are justified consisted almost exclusively of hearsay evidence that would not be admissible over objection in a civil proceeding in Florida. Petitioners, on the other hand, to show that the Department's concerns are unwarranted, presented the testimony of someone with personal knowledge regarding the matters about which the Department is concerned: Mrs. Wright. She testified with apparent candor and sincerity, and the undersigned has credited her testimony.

33. Based upon Mrs. Wright's testimony, the undersigned finds that Petitioners, as foster parents, have not deviated from the requirements of Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 13C-13.010, Florida Statutes, in the manner alleged by the Department and therefore Petitioners' application for relicensure should not be denied on the grounds asserted by the Department.

RECOMMENDATION

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

RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order declining to deny Petitioners' application for renewal of their family foster home license on the grounds set forth in October 17, 1997, letter that they received from the Department.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida.

STUART M. LERNER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1998.

ENDNOTES

1/ Petitioners' application for licensure may be denied only upon those grounds of which they were given appropriate notice.

See Woodholly Associates v. Department of Natural Resources, 451 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

2/ None of the Department counselors referenced in the Department's October 17, 1997, denial letter were called by the Department to testify.

3/ At hearing, the Department offered the testimony of neither Kenneth J., nor the counselor, to substantiate the allegation that Kenneth made this statement to the counselor.

4/ Section 409.175(2)(e), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] relative who cares for a child and does not receive reimbursement for such care from the state or federal government . . . is not considered a family foster home."

COPIES FURNISHED:

Rendell Brown, Esquire Brown and Marshall

319 Clematis Street, Suite 217 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Children and

Family Services

111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and

Family Services

1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Two, Suite 204

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

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.

Docket for Case No: 97-005478

Orders for Case No: 97-005478