The Issue Whether denial of Respondent's re-licensure application as a Foster Care Home for the reasons stated in the Department's denial letter of October 30, 2000, was appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary materials received in evidence and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are found: Under Section 409.175, Florida Statutes (2001), the Department of Children and Family Services is the State Agency responsible for evaluating, qualifying, licensing, and regulating family foster care homes. Petitioner, a single male, previously employed with an abused children agency in Broward County, Florida, was granted a foster care parent license by the DCF's Foster Care Licensing unit effective August 10, 1999, through November 10, 1999. A second child specific foster home license for G.K. was issued to Petitioner, effective from March 3, 2000, through August 10, 2000. DCF takes the position that Petitioner is not eligible for re-licensure as a family foster home primarily because he exhibited "poor judgment" relative to a single medical treatment, taking the temperature of an eleven-year-old male foster child through his rectum during the month of August 2000. DCF further alleges that Petitioner has willfully violated specific statutes and rules relating to the conduct and maintenance of the foster home. Those alleged violations are specified in the licensure denial letter dated October 30, 2000, from the DCF to Petitioner. Nicara Daniels is a foster care licensing unit worker with the DCF since November 1999. Ms. Daniels had on-the-job- training and some Professional Development Center Training for new employees. In the licensing unit, Ms. Daniels had training in physical abuse, sexual abuse, drug abuse, and emotional abuse toward children. The DCF used Ms. Daniels to provide testimony regarding each violation as they appeared in the letter of denial. Herein below the allegations are chronologically addressed. Medication and cooking wines in Petitioner's bathroom. On or about July 31, 2000, a period when Petitioner was licensed, Ms. Daniels, Child Protection Investigator assigned Petitioner, made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's home during a period when Petitioner was medicating himself. During her walk through Petitioner's bedroom she entered his bathroom and saw Petitioner's medication for his diabetes on the bathroom shelf along with several bottles of cooking wines. Ms. Daniels acknowledged that she observed the cooking wines in the bathroom. Along with bottles of medication she also observed the lock box in which Petitioner kept his medications and cooking wines when not in use. The door to Petitioner's bedroom and bathroom each had operative locks on them. Ms. Daniels knew that Petitioner took medication for his diabetic condition prior to this inspection and she acknowledged having no experience with the use of cooking wines. Rule 65C-13.011(14)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, requires all medication, poisonous chemicals, and cleaning materials to be in a locked place and inaccessible to children, and that alcoholic beverages should be stored out of the reach of small children; with the recommendation that these beverages be kept in a locked place. Ms. Daniels admitted that for the children, all of whom were 11 years or older, to have access to the medication or cooking wines, they must enter the bedroom, go into the bathroom and open the lock box. There is no evidence presented of any foster care child having access to Petitioner's bedroom, bathroom or the locked medicine box at any time. In making the foregoing finding, I have considered Ms. Daniel's testimony that she knew Petitioner was on medication. Ms. Daniels, however, never questioned the children whether they entered or attempted to enter Petitioner's bedroom at any time when he was not present. I find the mere presence of medications and cooking wines in Petitioner's bathroom, absent other evidence, is not a violation of the cited rule. John Snider in Petitioner's Foster Care home. Ms. Daniels testified that during an early morning visit on an unspecified date in July of 2000, she observed a young man, John Snider, in Petitioner's home. After she advised Mr. Snider had to be screened, Petitioner followed the DCF's process and a screening application for Mr. Snider was submitted to the Department. The Department screened and cleared Mr. Snider and advised Petitioner and Mr. Snider by letter on August 21, 2000. Rule 65C-13.010(4)(g), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the foster care parent notify the department of the presence of such person. Rule 65C-13.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires screening for "all persons that provide respite care in the . . . home on an overnight basis must be screened." Rule 65C-13.009(6)(a)5., Florida Administrative Code, requires a criminal records check for "all persons 18 years and older residing in the . . . home." Petitioner, during a telephone conversation with Ms. Daniels on July 31, 2000, informed her that Broward Juvenile Justice placed Mr. Snider in his home on July 27, 2000. It is Ms. Daniels' opinion that a four-day period between entry and notifying DCF is not reasonable notification. This "unreasonable" delay formed the basis for violation of the cited rule, notwithstanding the particular circumstances. Rule 65C-13.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, which requires "all persons that provide respite care . . . must be screened.” I find Ms. Daniels' opinion that four days is not "reasonable" notification not based upon any protocol, policy or rule of the DCF. In making the foregoing finding, I have considered the following. Petitioner informed Ms. Daniels by telephone that there were matters to discuss; however, the discussion took place four days later when Ms. Daniels was available. The Department of Juvenile Justice for Broward County placed Mr. Snider in Petitioner's home. After submitting an application, Mr. Snider was screened and cleared by the DCF. Considering the evidence as a whole, I find Mr. Snider's presence in Petitioner's home, under authority of the Broward County Juvenile Justice unit, and with telephonic notice to the DCF's licensing unit worker four days after entry into the home is not unreasonable, under the circumstances. Home Department's placing of T.J. in Petitioner's Foster Sometime during the first week of August 2000, Robert Mistretta, Department's child protection investigator and T.J.'s initial case worker, removed T.J. from his family and sought overnight foster care for him. Mr. Mistretta, aware of T.J.'s family situation, his medical, physical, emotional, and sexually abusive history sought a foster care home with those factors in mind. The Department's placement unit instructed him to take T.J. to Petitioner's home for an overnight stay. Mr. Mistretta took T.J. to Petitioner's home with the intention of an overnight stay and reassessment of the situation the following morning. After discussion with Petitioner of T.J.'s need for an overnight stay, Petitioner agreed. Mr. Mistretta chose not to provide Petitioner with information regarding T.J.'s medical, social, physical, emotional, or abusive family history. However, Mistretta gave Petitioner the DCF's emergency pager phone number [570-3081] for use during non-working hours and for emergencies should the need arise. Rectal Temperature Taking What had begun as an overnight stay resulted in a permanent placement and on or about August 6 or 7, 2000, T.J. became ill. His illness began during the day and continuing into the night. According to Petitioner, T.J. exhibited symptoms of a cold or flu, including fever, chills and headache. During the night, he was restless, tossing and turning in his sleep. Petitioner, having no medical history on T.J., became concerned about T.J.'s condition. He made several calls to the Department's emergency pager number [570-3081] provided him by Bob Mistretta, without success. Petitioner then attempted to contact Dr. Stuart Grant, a pediatrician, to no avail. Petitioner thereafter attempted to use his MAPP training first aid guide provided by the Department, but found those instructions unclear. Petitioner then sought information concerning fever and temperature taking from the internet. During the night while T.J. was asleep, Petitioner used a rectal thermometer to take T.J.'s temperature, causing him to awaken suddenly, somewhat startled. Petitioner talked with T.J., explained his concerns with his condition and the reason for taking T.J.'s temperature in that fashion. T.J. responded in a positive manner and went back to sleep. The following morning, Petitioner contacted Mistretta and explained what had happened with T.J. the night before. Mistretta took T.J. aside and privately inquired if he understood "good" touching from and "bad" touching. T.J. stated he understood the difference. When asked about Petitioner's manner of touching him while taking his temperature during the night, T.J. affirmed that Petitioner's touching was a "good" touch and not a "bad" touch. Mistretta, based upon his experience working with children who had suffered abuse, accepted T.J.'s response as true. Satisfied that no "bad" touching occurred during the rectal temperature taking process, Mistretta reported the incident to his supervisor, including his conclusion that nothing sexually or abusive had occurred and concluded his report in part as follows: "This case is closed with no indicators. There is no maltreatment that addressed a bad choice of judgment by a caretaker. There are licensing [unit] concerns regarding Mr. Marlowe's choice to use a rectal thermometer on an 11 year old child." (Emphasis Added) Mr. Mistretta testified that his understanding of the sequence of events the night T.J. was ill were: T.J. was running a high fever and had trouble falling asleep. Petitioner tried cold cloths to reduce the fever that, according to Petitioner's monitoring, was getting too high. Since T.J. was having trouble sleeping and once he did sleep, Petitioner thought a rectal thermometer would be best to try not to awaken him, Petitioner chose to use that form of temperature taking. T.J. reacted with a little bit of pain. Based on Petitioner's history of dealing with sexually abused kids, that reaction is not normal. When Petitioner talked with him about what happened, T.J. disclosed his history to Petitioner. In the process of making the decision as to the appropriate treatment, Petitioner consulted with a Johnson and Johnson book and several medical web sites. The documents from the medical web sites were subsequently provided by Petitioner. I find Mr. Mistretta's testimony credible regarding his conversation with Petitioner immediately after the T.J.'s incident. Following the above, Ms. Mistretta, in addition to his duty as T.J.'s caseworker, was also assigned by his supervisor to investigate a hotline abuse report. Mr. Mistretta investigated the alleged abuse narrative report and found no indication of maltreatment. He recommended the hotline abuse report be closed. Upon being presented with the hotline abuse report narrative with suggestions and allegations of sexual abuse, Mr. Mistretta testified: "The information generated in this narrative in the reporter page that has reporter information states that the CPI, Robert Mistretta, told reporter about allegations. So the source of this report is me. The reporters made their own clarifications, answered their own questions regarding some things instead of calling me back to clarity, talked amongst themselves, found out that they didn't like what happened, and some of the narrative is not true. It is blown out of the water, if you would. The narrative was started by a report. When Mr. Marlowe talked to me, I talked to somebody who talked to somebody, who talked to somebody. The next thing you know we have sexual abuse. The narrative is not true. I did not agree with the removal of T.J. (Emphasis Added) I find Mr. Mistretta's testimony on this issue to be consistent and credible. In making the foregoing finding, I have considered the testimony of the DCF's other witnesses, none of whom had personal knowledge of the abuse report contents. However, Mr. Mistretta is the only witness with personal knowledge of events acquired in his positions as T.J.'s initial caseworker, his placement agent, the interviewer of T.J. and Petitioner, and the originator of the initial report. I have considered the fact that this incident occurred during the week of August 6-12, 2000. Petitioner's license expired on August 10, 2000. However, the DCF did not remove T.J. from Petitioner's home until September 6, 2000, almost a month later. I have also considered Ms. Daniels' testimony that during Petitioner's unlicensed period, DCF's placement unit continued to place children in Petitioner's home. I have also considered the deposition of Dr. Patricia Buck, M.D., pediatrician and Child Protection Team member for District 14 [Polk, Highland and Hardee counties], who was qualified as an expert in pediatrics and child abuse. After her review of documents provided by DCF and given the circumstances by DCF's counsel and Petitioner, Dr. Buck opined that use of a rectal thermometer would not have been her recommendation, had she been the care provider. According to Dr. Buck, anal temperature taking as a medical procedure is not abuse. Adding that the more medical history one has on a patient, the less likely a mistake in patient treatment. The evidence as a whole, including Mistretta's testimony and Dr. Buck's opinion, is persuasive as it relates to the issue of the circumstances and the "appropriateness" of the rectal temperature taking procedure. Accordingly, the testimony of Ms. Daniels, the licensing unit informs placement and other Department units of those parents who were licensed, parents who were not licensed or parents whose licenses had expired. She recalled attending the staffing meeting regarding the T.J. temperature incident and recalled informing staff that Petitioner was not a licensed foster care home after August 10, 2000. According to Ms. Daniels, placing children in a non-licensed home is not permissible. However, its her testimony that in this case, DCF's placement unit placed children in Petitioner's home during a period of time he was not licensed, and during the time T.J. was in Petitioner's home because of [DCF] "it being in a crisis situation with the number of homes we had." In making this finding, I have considered both the DCF's need for foster care beds and its concern for the safety of foster care children. I have also considered the DCF's use of Petitioner's home when they were "in a crisis situation with the number of homes we had." Screening of Ms. Scott Regarding the screening of Ms. Scott, Ms. Daniels testified Petitioner informed her that the screening application papers for Ms. Scott were submitted to the Department and had apparently come up missing. Ms. Daniels acknowledged that she had no evidence to support her conclusion that Ms. Scott was a respite sitter for Petitioner's foster care children; that she had never checked with the DCF to ascertain whether or not Ms. Scott had been screened. Not inquiring whether Ms. Scott had been screened renders Ms. Daniels' testimony questionable. I find Ms. Daniel's testimony regarding Petitioner's failure to provide the Department with Ms. Scott's application for screening not credible. Unwillingness to Provide Information on Mary Poe At some unspecified date, Ms. Daniels recalled she had a conversation with Petitioner regarding his next door neighbor, Ms. Poe, someone who would "check" on the foster children from time to time when Petitioner was late returning from work. Ms. Daniels did not recall if Ms. Poe entered Petitioner's home or gave the key to the children to enter in the home on days he was late returning from work. Ms. Daniels recalled only that, Petitioner's attitude regarding screening Ms. Poe was "uncooperative" and "defiant." During cross-examination Ms. Daniels could not recall the conversation with Petitioner when she was informed that Petitioner's condominium covenants required the manager to have a key to his apartment in case of emergencies. She did recall that Petitioner told her Ms. Poe was the mother of the condominium manager. Ms. Daniels recalled when she voiced concern with the situation Petitioner retrieved his key from Ms. Poe and returned it to the condominium manager for pick up by the children when they returned from school. I find Ms. Daniel's testimony regarding Petitioner's unwillingness to provide information concerning Mary Poe evasive, inconsistent and not credible. In making the foregone finding, I have considered Ms. Daniel's inability to recall facts, dates, times, places, regarding the matter to which she testified. I have considered the fact that Petitioner, when Ms. Daniels voiced concern, corrected the situation by removing the key from Ms. Poe's possession, thereby removing the need for screening by the Department. I have also considered Ms. Daniels' inability to recall facts regarding an incident the DCF considered an intentional refusal by Petitioner to "cooperate" and "communicate" with Department's staff. Confidentiality in Keeping a Life Book on Foster Care Children Ms. Daniels testified that Petitioner informed her the foster care children had a computer life book (photo album) website. After being directed to the website by Petitioner and after viewing the website, Ms. Daniels concluded Petitioner had "released" the names and photos of the foster children on the websites. Without providing a rational basis, she testified that keeping required foster child life books in an electronic format is, in and of itself, inappropriate. She further testified that placing the names and photos on the web site violated DCF's rule of confidentiality. Rule 65C.010(1)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code, requires the foster care parent to maintain the children's records which ensures confidentiality for the child and the biological parents. Petitioner maintained that each child made an individual and personal decision to use the computers he made available in his home. To his knowledge each child placed his personal information, name, foster care status, photos, etc., on the web sites during chats and exchange of information with others users in various chat-room conversations. Ms. Daniels never inquired of the foster children whose names and status were found on the book of life web sites to ascertain whether they or Petitioner placed personal information on the web site. I find her testimony on this issue to be questionable, but reliable. In making the foregoing findings, I have considered Ms. Daniels' testimony and the absence of evidence in support thereof. I find Petitioner's testimony that he never divulged any confidential information on the web sites regarding foster children in his care credible, but not persuasive. As the custodial parent, Petitioner has the ultimate responsibility to maintain and protect the confidentiality of the children in his care and under his supervision. Permitting children of divulge personal/confidential and potentially endangering information on the web site is a breach of Petitioner's parental responsibility. Removal of G.K. from medication prescribed by a Doctor DCF alleged that Petitioner removed G.K. from prescribed medication in violation of Rule 65C-13.010(1)(b)7.a, Florida Administrative Code, which imposes on the foster parent the responsibility for dispensing the medication as prescribed by the physician and recording the exact amount prescribed. In support of this allegation, the Department offered the testimony of Ms. Daniels. Ms. Daniels, by her admission, had no personal knowledge regarding G.K. and Petitioner's actions with G.K.'s medication. Her testimony was based upon what she had previously read in the file prepared by Stephanie Gardner, DCF's Representative and Petitioner's caseworker before the case reassignment to Ms. Daniels. When Ms. Daniels initially inquired of Petitioner about G.K.'s medication, he informed her that before he discontinued G.K.'s medication, he consulted with a nurse who in turn consulted with the prescribing doctor about the matter. Based on the response received from this consultation he discontinued G.K.'s psychotropic medication. Ms. Daniels based her conclusion of unauthorized discontinuance of medication on her conversations with Ray Mallette, a Department mental health counselor. In his letter to Petitioner, Mr. Mallette stated, in pertinent part: "To my knowledge, G.K. was not taking any psychotropic medication while under my care. Treatment was terminated in June of 1999, by mutual agreement, as no further care needed." Ms. Daniels testified that during her conversations with Mr. Mallette she recalled his stating that he did not authorize discontinuation of G.K.'s medication. Ms. Daniels could not state with any certainty if Mr. Mallette's use of the term "medication" included psychotropic medications or other medications. Petitioner provided Ms. Daniels the name of the Broward County physician with whom Petitioner had conferred through his nurse and who authorized taking G.K. off medication. There is no evidence that Ms. Daniels attempted to verify whether the medical persons provided by Petitioner had given instructions to take G.K. off psychotropic medications. I find Ms. Daniels' testimony on the issue of G.K.'s medication to be incomplete, confused and, not creditable. In making the foregoing finding, I have considered Mr. Mallette's letter reflecting that he is not a medical doctor or dentist; therefore, he cannot prescribe nor discontinue a prescribed medication to a patient. I. Use of profanity and general unwillingness to work cooperatively with the Department Rule 65C-13.010(1)(c)1., Florida Administrative Code, requires foster care parents 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. In support of the above allegations, the DCF offered only the testimony of Ms. Daniels who stated: ". . . [A]lso during a conversation Mr. Marlowe used profanity. As far as [sic] concerned as just being uncooperative and maybe someone being uncooperative meaning there's something else behind it as far as, you know, not one to follow the rules that are set by the Department." I find the above testimony of Ms. Daniels to be vague and questionable. In making the foregoing finding, I have taken into consideration the fact that Ms. Daniels could not recall the date, time, place, words, or the circumstances of her conversation with Petitioner in which the alleged profanity was uttered. I have also taken into consideration the testimony of Ms. Stephanie Gardner, regarding Petitioner's uncooperativeness. Ms. Gardner, acknowledging that she did not know, did not remember nor did she recall; then went on to state: " . . . that at some unknown time and date, Petitioner stated, mentioned or indicated some information about a child or foster child that he had parented before. I don't know if it was Gary or one of the children that were actually at the Broward County at the Outreach Broward facility where he worked, but it was some information, and it was kind of alarming." I find the testimony of Ms. Daniels and the testimony of Ms. Gardner regarding the alleged profanity and regarding alleged uncooperativeness of Petitioner with the DCF questionable. Excluding the foregone evidence, other testimony regarding Petitioner and his conduct addressing matters that are related to those specific issues raised in DCF's denial letter of October 30, 2000, is neither material nor relevant to issues under consideration in this cause and disregarded.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for re-licensure as a family foster home should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lorraine Arnold, has operated a foster home since 1995 at her current place of residence. Petitioner applied for and was granted a family foster home license in January 1995. Petitioner was approved for placement of up to two children between the ages of 5 and 10 years. Foster home licenses are valid for one year and must be renewed annually. Petitioner's license was renewed annually thereafter. On December 15, 2000, Petitioner applied to renew her foster home license. Respondent denied Petitioner's application for renewal on March 9, 2001. During the relevant time-period in 2000, Petitioner was entrusted with responsibility for several children, including two teenage foster children, L. C. and J. B. In late August 2000, Respondent's case worker approached Petitioner with the request to accept into her home L. C., a 17-year-old female. Petitioner was told that L. C. was severely emotionally disturbed (SED), had violent behavior problems and was taking psychotropic medication. Because of L. C.'s history of behavioral problems, including incidents of violence, Respondent offered to contract with a private company to provide Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) services to supplement the care given to L. C. Contract CNAs were to be present with L. C. around the clock, in order to provide Petitioner and her family some semblance of protection in the event of a violent outburst by L. C. This case worker assured her that under the watchful eye of the CNAs, L. C. would do fine. Petitioner was provided with additional monetary inducements by Respondent in order to persuade Petitioner to take in L. C. Upon placement, L. C.'s "Blue Book" was not provided to Petitioner. The "Blue Book" contained critical medical and social information about L. C. In addition, L. C. was not under the care of any local healthcare professional at the time of placement. Although Petitioner is a licensed pharmacist in Florida, she has received no special training in dealing with SED children. No specialized training of any kind was provided by Respondent during the two months that L. C. lived in Petitioner's home. Respondent was aware that L. C.'s needs required that she be placed in a living situation where she could receive proper therapy for her special needs, but none was provided. Respondent's conduct in the placement of L. C. in Petitioner's home violated its own guidelines and demonstrated very poor judgment on its part. The presence of contract CNAs was not intended to, nor did it in fact, relieve Petitioner of her responsibility to supervise foster children in her care. However, Petitioner was not instructed by Respondent that the teenage children in her care were not permitted to be alone or leave with the CNA, if the CNA offered to take them out for a supervised activity. In August of 2000, Petitioner gave L. C. and J. B., both minor girls, permission to go with the CNA, then on duty, to the home of L. C.'s aunt. While at the home of L. C.'s aunt, J. B., then fourteen years old, slipped out of the house and smoked marijuana. When J. B.'s case worker learned of the incident, she had J. B. tested for drug usage; J. B. tested positive for marijuana. Petitioner had L. C. tested and her test results were negative. Carla Washington, case worker for both L. C. and J. B., had previously informed Petitioner that L. C. was not to have contact with family members that was not supervised by Respondent. Petitioner misunderstood the instructions, and believed that L. C. was only restricted from having contact with her mother. Petitioner was not negligent in this incident, and J. B.'s misconduct could not have reasonably been foreseen. Less than a month before the incident in which J. B. smoked marijuana at L. C.'s aunt's house, there were two other incidents involving J. B. and L. C., with results detrimental to the foster children. On one occasion, Petitioner gave permission for the CNA on duty to take L. C. and another foster child out to the movies. Because of a family emergency, Petitioner left Orlando and drove to Tallahassee, leaving her adult daughter in charge of the household. The CNA took the two foster children to her residence, changed into "hoochie" clothes, went to a bar during which L. C. visited with her mother and witnessed a shooting. After the incident, the case worker spoke to Petitioner and reminded her that L. C. was not to have unsupervised contact with her mother. Petitioner complied with these instructions. No evidence was presented concerning the disposition of the CNA that perpetrated this outrageous conduct. Petitioner was not negligent in giving permission for the girls to go to the movies, and the CNA's conduct could not have been foreseen. On September 14, 2000, Petitioner was placed in a position of duress in regard to L. C. She had not received L. C.'s Blue Book, which contained all of her medical records and her Medicaid number, and L. C. was out of all of her psychotropic medications. Petitioner tried several times to find a psychiatrist who would treat L. C. She spent 2 days looking through the telephone book and calling every psychiatrist until she found one who would accept Medicaid. She also went to the Nemours Children's Clinic and spent most of the day waiting at the Sanford Health Department, where Petitioner finally discovered that L. C. could only be seen by a doctor in the Oviedo area. When the doctor in Oviedo was contacted an appointment was made for the following day at 2:00 p.m. Petitioner contacted the caseworker for assistance in getting L. C. to the doctor's appointment because Petitioner was unable to remain out of work for a third day. The case worker informed Petitioner that she was unable to assist, and if Petitioner did not see that the child got to the doctor any repercussions would be Petitioner's responsibility. Petitioner was given no choice but to rely on a family member to assist in making sure that L. C. received the required medical attention. Petitioner asked a family member to take L. C. and J. B. to the doctor's appointment. He left them in the reception area for 20 minutes to run an errand while L. C. waited to see the doctor. Before he returned, L. C. and J. B. misbehaved at the doctor's office. The adult family member did not have reason to believe that these two teenagers could not be left alone at a doctor's office for 20 minutes. He expected that the teenagers would behave themselves for such a short period of time. During the course of her testimony in this matter, J. B. testified that she had sexual relations in the house while living with Petitioner. This testimony is neither credible nor relevant to this proceeding. Petitioner has not committed an intentional or negligent act which materially affected the health or safety of L. C. or J. B. while in her care. Several years in the past, Petitioner used corporal punishment on a much younger, uncontrollable foster child on more than one occasion. Upon receiving counseling from her case worker, Petitioner agreed to corrective action to address her improper use of corporal punishment of foster children entrusted to her care. Over time, Petitioner has displayed extreme care and concern for the children placed in her care. She has taken the issues of supervision seriously. Petitioner has demonstrated that as a foster mother she has given the children placed in her care an abundance of love. She has taught them how to care for and love themselves. She has been there to listen to their needs and their desires, and she cares about them. She has taught them that self- control, self-discipline and hard work will lead to success in life.
Recommendation Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary grant Petitioner's application for renewal of her family foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lorraine Arnold 3997 Biscayne Drive Winter Springs, Florida 32708 Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents' foster home license should be revoked for violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-13.030(3).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for foster care licensing, pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-13. Respondents are a mother, Mary Highsmith, and daughter, Dawndrell Martin, who reside together and obtained a joint license to provide foster care to children on November 16, 2017. On July 16, 2018, the Department’s Florida Abuse Hotline received an abuse report regarding B.H., a five-year-old female, who had been previously removed from her parents due to abuse, abandonment, or neglect and placed in the foster home of Respondents in November of 2017. The abuse report stated that B.H. had bruising on her back, face, and on top of her head. B.H. told the abuse reporter that “TT” had hit her with a brush or comb. “TT” was B.H.’s nickname for Ms. Martin. Daniel Henry, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned to investigate the abuse report. He interviewed B.H., who told him that Ms. Martin had punished her by hitting her with a comb, a switch, and a flip-flop and that Ms. Highsmith had repeatedly “thumped” her forehead with a flick of her finger. Mr. Henry interviewed the reporter of the abuse. He contacted local law enforcement to facilitate a joint investigation, contacted the Department’s licensing staff, and interviewed Respondents. Based on B.H.’s statements, Mr. Henry immediately referred the case to the CPT. The CPT is an independent entity created by statute and overseen by an interagency agreement between the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Health. Among other services, the CPT performs assessments that include medical evaluations, specialized clinical interviews, and forensic interviews. See § 39.303, Fla. Stat. In this case, B.H.’s physical injuries led the CPT to arrange a forensic interview and a medical evaluation of the child. Kimberly Dykes is an ARNP working for the CPT. She has undergone specialized training in child maltreatment, including the nature, origin, manifestations, and symptoms of abuse and injuries inflicted upon minor children. Her training included recognizing the difference between accidental and intentional injuries. Ms. Dykes performed a medical examination and interviewed B.H. about the cause of her injuries. Ms. Dykes concluded that B.H.’s wounds were consistent with inflicted injury, and were consistent with the causation described by the child as “having been repeatedly struck with a comb and a switch and having been repeatedly thumped in the forehead.” Ms. Dykes testified that she spoke with the investigator for the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office, Sergeant Cheree Edwards. Ms. Dykes stated that Sgt. Edwards provided her with the explanations that Respondents had offered for B.H.’s injuries. Ms. Dykes testified that she was able to medically rule out each of these explanations as lacking appropriate medical and testimonial support for their causation. Ms. Dykes further recommended that B.H. be removed from Respondents’ home and placed in alternate custody. Angela Griffin is a specialist with the CPT, who is certified to provide specialized clinical interviews and forensic interviews of minor children. Ms. Griffin conducted a forensic interview of B.H. Ms. Griffin testified as to the safeguards necessary to protect the integrity of the interview process with a child, such as building rapport, discussing the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, and explaining the “rules of the room” to the child, including the fact that the interview will be recorded and that the child should make it known if she does not understand a question. Ms. Griffin stated that she employed all these safeguards during her interview with B.H. During her interview with Ms. Griffin, B.H. described how her injuries were inflicted. This description was consistent with the story B.H. told to the abuse reporter, to Mr. Henry, and to Ms. Dykes.1/ B.H. told Ms. Griffin that Ms. Martin had hit her on the head, in the face, and on the back with a comb, a switch, and a flip-flop, and that Ms. Highsmith had thumped her forehead. Upon concluding the forensic interview and medical evaluation, Ms. Griffin and Ms. Dykes provided recommendations for the care of B.H. They recommended that B.H. be removed immediately from the home of Respondents. They further recommended that any and all other children placed with Respondents be removed, and that no further children be placed with them. They recommended counseling for B.H. After concluding his investigation and consulting with the CPT, Mr. Henry verified the allegations of physical abuse by Ms. Martin. He recommended that Respondents’ foster home license be revoked and that no other children be allowed to reside with them. At the hearing, Sgt. Edwards testified as to the investigation she conducted for the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office. She stated that in cases of joint investigation by the Department and law enforcement, the CPT is critical in allowing a single point of contact with the minor victim. It is in the best interest of the child to avoid multiple and redundant interviews that could cause repeated trauma. Following the joint investigation protocol, Sgt. Edwards did not conduct her own interview of B.H., but observed the recording of Ms. Griffin’s interview with B.H. Sgt. Edwards also reviewed the notes made by Mr. Henry, the Department’s investigator. Sgt. Edwards interviewed Respondents and took repeated statements from them regarding possible origins of the injuries to B.H. She allowed Respondents to provide any and all evidence relevant to this matter. Sgt. Edwards testified that she contacted, or attempted to contact, every witness named by Respondents, including the day care teachers, and reviewed every piece of evidence presented by Respondents. During her investigation, Sgt. Edwards discovered a hair comb at Respondents’ residence. A photograph of the comb taken by law enforcement was presented as an exhibit in this proceeding. The photo shows a long-handled “rattail” comb. Sgt. Edwards determined this comb to match the item described by B.H. as the implement used by Ms. Martin to hit her on the head. Ms. Dykes testified that the comb showed in the photograph could easily have been the cause of the injuries to the top of B.H.’s head. Based on her independent investigation, Sgt. Edwards found probable cause to file criminal charges against Ms. Martin for inflicting injury on B.H. At the time of the hearing, the criminal case was still pending. At the hearing, the Department presented 13 photographs, taken by Ms. Griffin, of B.H.’s injuries. The photos detail multiple sources of trauma and bruising to B.H.’s face, head, back, eyes, neck, and scalp. None of the wounds appeared deep or serious, but did appear to be more severe than the usual bumps and bruises a parent expects from an active child. Ms. Dykes testified that the injuries in the photos were entirely consistent with B.H.’s statements that Ms. Martin caused them by hitting her with a comb, a switch, and a flip- flop. Respondents did not testify. Through cross- examination and argument, Respondents were able to put forward some of their explanations for the injuries to B.H. They contended both that B.H. is inclined to self-harm and that the injuries must have been inflicted at Caverns Learning Center, the day care facility that reported the injuries to the Florida Abuse Hotline. They contended that the child may have hit her head on a dresser while bouncing on her bed. They stated that B.H.’s skin had been rubbed raw by a seat belt. Her scalp injuries may have been caused by a harsh shampoo used to treat for lice, or by self-pulling of her hair, or by undiagnosed folliculitis. Ms. Highsmith theorized that the entire case was fabricated by authorities who did not like the fact that black foster parents were caring for white children. Respondents argued that Mr. Henry did not pursue other theories as to the cause of the injuries. For example, he took employees of Caverns Learning Center at their word when they told him B.H. was injured when she arrived at the day care on the morning of July 16, 2018. They also questioned why approximately two hours passed between B.H.’s arrival at the day care and the call to the Florida Abuse Hotline. Mr. Henry plausibly addressed both issues raised by Respondents. He testified that the Department bases its investigations on the identity of the alleged perpetrator. Because B.H. repeatedly and consistently identified Ms. Martin as the person who inflicted the injuries, Mr. Henry saw no reason to cast about for other suspects. Mr. Henry stated that he did not find it unusual for a busy day care to take a couple of hours to report to the abuse hotline. Respondents did not themselves testify on the advice of their criminal defense attorney. Respondents did present the testimony of their licensing specialist, Kristy Hancock, and a “courtesy” dependency case manager, Precious Ingram.2/ Ms. Hancock testified that she was the instructor for Respondents’ foster home licensing class. Respondents were “very engaged” during the seven weeks of coursework and seemed to understand the implications of being foster parents. Ms. Hancock stated that she had visited Respondents’ home and all seemed well.3/ Ms. Hancock also testified that she was aware of “issues” with Caverns Learning Center, but did not elaborate. Ms. Ingram testified that Respondents were cooperative with her when she made her monthly home visits. She observed nothing that would indicate abuse or neglect. She never saw marks on B.H. resembling those in the photographs introduced by the Department. Ms. Ingram stated that she saw nothing out of the ordinary in Respondents’ foster home and never had cause to raise concerns about the care of the children there. Jeanne Durden is employed by Big Bend Community Based Care (“BBCBC”) and is in charge of BBCBC’s licensing responsibilities. BBCBC is a contractor retained by the Department to provide foster care services in Circuits 2 and 14. BBCBC manages foster care licensing for the cited jurisdictions. Ms. Durden testified that it was her responsibility to provide quality assurance for all foster care licensing operations. BBCBC contracts with other entities to provide front line case management, and Ms. Durden provides oversight for those subcontractors. Ms. Durden testified that she removed all of the minor children from Respondents’ home immediately after reviewing the findings of the child protective investigator and the CPT. Ms. Durden also recommended immediate termination and revocation of Respondents’ foster home license. Ms. Durden explained that her recommendation was due to the nature and findings of the Department’s verified child protection abuse report as well as the criminal charges filed against Ms. Martin. She noted that Department rules do not permit corporal punishment of any kind for foster children, because of the traumas these children have already experienced. Ms. Durden did not believe that anything short of revocation was legally appropriate. She opined that mitigation was not possible based on the nature and cause of B.H.’s injuries. Regina Pleas is safety program manager for the Department’s Northwest Region. Among her duties is management of the Department’s licensing operations. BBCBC has the contractual responsibility to recruit, retain, and manage foster homes, but the Department is ultimately responsible for all decisions and maintains final approval for BBCBC’s licensing actions. Ms. Pleas reviewed Ms. Durden’s recommendation of revocation of Respondent’s foster home license. After considering the nature and cause of the injuries inflicted, the consistency of B.H.’s statements, and the analysis of the CPT, Ms. Pleas concurred that revocation was necessary. In considering the appropriateness of revocation, Ms. Pleas also took into account that Respondents were now subject to a verified abuse report, meaning that the Department could no longer place minor children in their care. Ms. Pleas drafted the letter notifying Respondents of the Department’s decision to revoke their foster home license. The letter, dated September 28, 2018, appropriately notified Respondents of the Department’s intended action and of their due process rights in challenging the Department’s preliminary decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families revoking the foster home license of Respondents Dawndrell Martin and Mary Highsmith. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2019.
The Issue Should the renewal of Petitioners' family foster home license for the 1995- 96 license year be denied?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department was the agency in the State of Florida responsible for the initial licensing and relicensure of family foster homes and foster parents. Petitioners Carmen Torres and Angel Torres (Petitioners) were licensed by the Department as foster parents and issued a Certificate of License, Certificate Number 0894-13-3, to operate the C and F Foster Home located at 801 North Anoka Avenue, Avon Park, Highlands County, Florida. The license was issued for a period of one year beginning August 12, 1994, and ending on August 12, 1995, unless renewed, extended, withdrawn, or revoked for cause. Sometime prior to August 12, 1995, the procedure set forth in Rule 10M- 6.020, Florida Administrative Code, for relicensing Petitioners was initiated by the Department. During the relicensing process, allegations of bizarre punishment and improper confinement of foster children were made against Petitioners. Based on these allegations, the Department denied Petitioners the renewal of their family foster home license, but the Department failed to notify Petitioners of that decision. Therefore, Petitioners were not given a point of entry to contest the Department's decision. After Petitioners' family foster home license expired on August 12, 1995, Petitioners contacted the Department's Bartow, Florida office by telephone to inquire as to why their family foster home license had not been renewed. In response to the Petitioners' telephone inquiry, the Department, by letter dated April 30,1996, advised Petitioners that their family foster home license had lapsed on August 12, 1995. The letter also advised Petitioners that their family foster home license had been denied primarily on the basis of "substantiated allegations of bizarre punishment and improper confinement of foster children," and further advised Petitioners of their right to contest that decision. C. S., a 12-year old foster child that was placed with Petitioners for approximately a week sometime around April 1995, testified that he was treated "pretty good" by the Torres; that although he was required to watch television a "lot" on a screened-in porch, he did not consider himself being improperly confined because he was allowed to leave the porch to use the bathroom and to eat. The Torres kept the children on the porch so that the Torres could maintain contact with the children while they worked in the home. C. S. also testified that he was not particularly "crazy" about the food prepared by Petitioners because it contained peppers and onions. C. S.'s younger brother, B. S., and younger sister, A. S., both foster children, were also placed with Petitioners at the same time. C. S. did not remember any of them being mistreated or punished in any fashion. The Department failed to present evidence to show that Petitioners punished the foster children placed under their care in a bizarre manner or any other manner, or that they improperly confined foster children placed under their care, or mistreated foster children placed under their care, notwithstanding the testimony of Liz Peralta (Torres) to the contrary, which I find totally lacking in credibility. It was obvious that this witness, a former daughter-in-law, had an "axe to grind" with Petitioners. Selma T. Sanford-Huber, a Department employee responsible for licensing foster parents and family foster homes, testified that she was in Petitioners' home around April 23, 1995, for the purpose of relicensing. Huber further testified that due to the allegations, all foster children were removed from Petitioners' home on May 5, 1995, and that no other foster children were to be placed in Petitioners' home during the investigation. Although Huber testified that she was concerned about the foster children in Petitioners' home, she was unable to present evidence of anything specific that would justify her concern for the children and require the denial of the renewal of Petitioners' family foster home license for the 1995-96 license year. It is clear from the evidence, or from the lack of evidence, that the Department has failed to prove the allegations set forth in its Notice of Denial dated April 30, 1996. Likewise, it is clear from the record that but for the allegations of "bizarre punishment and improper confinement" the Petitioners' family foster home license would have been renewed for the 1995-96 license year. However, that license would have expired on August 12, 1996, and there is no evidence that the procedure for relicensing Petitioners for the year 1996-97 is in progress or has been accomplished.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, recommended that Petitioners' family foster home license be renewed for the 1995-96 license year which ended on August 12, 1996. It is further recommended that should Petitioners wish to renew their family foster home license for the 1996-97 license year, which began on August 12, 1996, then the Department shall, in full cooperation with Petitioners, proceed with all due haste to complete the relicensing procedures outlined in Rule 10M-6.020, Florida Administrative Code. Upon completion of those procedures, should the Department's decision be to deny Petitioners renewal of their family foster home license for the 1996-97 license year, then the Department should immediately notify Petitioners of its decision and advise them of their right to a hearing to contest the denial. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-66847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 2, Room 204X 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angel and Carmen Torres 801 North Anoka Avenue Avon Park, Florida 33825 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 270 Bartow Municipal Airport Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents' application for re-licensure of their therapeutic foster home should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents have operated a licensed foster home since 1994 and have operated a therapeutic foster home since 2011. The Respondents' foster home was originally licensed under the supervision of Lee County Mental Health Center, which was the local agency responsible for placing children in the home. In 2009, responsibility for supervision of the home was transferred to "Florida MENTOR" (MENTOR), which also assumed the responsibility for placement of children in the home. The children placed in the Respondents' foster home have been between eight and 11 years of age. Children placed in therapeutic foster homes have significant special needs and can be emotionally unstable. A safe and supportive therapeutic environment is required for their protection. The Respondents' license was valid through September 30, 2011. On August 3, 2011, the Respondents applied for renewal of the license. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-13.027 requires that changes in a licensee's household composition or employment be reported within 48 hours of the event. When the application was filed, the Respondents disclosed that their adult daughter and her three children had been residing with them for approximately three weeks. Prior to the application, the Respondents had not advised MENTOR that there had been any change in household composition. Mr. Williams became unemployed in December 2010, but the Respondents failed to report the change in the employment prior to filing the application. MENTOR was concerned about the financial stability of the household due to additional residents in the home and the reduction in income related to the loss of Mr. Williams' employment. An applicant for re-licensure of a foster home is required to submit financial information sufficient to establish that the applicant has the resources required to provide a stable household and meet basic expenses. The financial information initially submitted by the Respondents with the application for re-licensure was incomplete and did not appear to be an accurate reflection of household expenses. Attempts by MENTOR to obtain additional information were resisted by Ms. Williams. MENTOR eventually determined that, although the household had sufficient income to support their own expenses, placement of a foster child into the Respondents' home would cause a financial hardship for the family. Foster parents are permitted, with approval of the supervising agency, to add payments received to board a foster child to their income calculation, but the Respondents have not obtained such approval. By the time of the hearing, the Williams' adult daughter and her children no longer resided in the home, but Mr. Williams remained unemployed and was selling scrap metal to obtain income. At the hearing, he testified that his scrap metal income had been declining as more unemployed people began to collect and resell scrap. In September 2011, MENTOR completed the re-licensing study, a 24-page document that outlines the history of the foster home, including abuse reports and licensing deficiencies, and the efforts of the licensee to correct such issues. Rule 65C-13.028(3)(i)2. requires that the re-licensing study include documentation related to the level of cooperation by the licensee with the case plans developed for the child placed in the foster home. The re-licensing study documented MENTOR's concerns about the physical safety of children residing in the home and the Respondents' willingness and ability to provide appropriate support to therapeutic foster children placed in the home. During a significant period in 2011, the Respondents maintained a collection of junk metal and other debris in the yard of the foster home. The junk was apparently being collected by Mr. Williams for sale to scrap dealers. Jodi Koch, a MENTOR therapist who was assigned to work with the children in the Respondents' home, testified at the hearing about her observations of conditions in the home and about her interactions with the Respondents. In November 2010, Ms. Koch observed a child begin to play with a rusty machete that the child discovered in the Respondents' yard, and she so advised Ms. Williams, who expressed her displeasure that Ms. Koch had exceeded her authority as a therapist. Ms. Koch reported her observation to MENTOR personnel. MENTOR officials, including the program director and re-licensing coordinator, discussed the unsafe conditions of the property with the Respondents. Suggestions that the Respondents relocate the debris or otherwise prevent access by children to the debris were initially ignored by the Respondents. On May 2, 2011, MENTOR issued a Written Notice of Violation (Notice) to the Respondents, documenting the hazardous conditions of the property. The Notice was hand-delivered on May 5, 2011, at which time the Respondents refused to read or sign the paper. On May 6, 2011, the Lee County Code Enforcement Authority issued a nuisance citation against the Respondents for the accumulation of junk and debris on their property. The violation was cured on May 13, 2011, but, on June 1, 2011, the Lee County Code Enforcement Authority issued a second nuisance citation for the same violation. That violation was not resolved until November 2011, after the Lee County Code Enforcement Authority had prosecuted the violation through a hearing, and more than a year after Ms. Koch observed the child with the machete. At the hearing, Ms. Williams asserted that Ms. Koch was a therapist and that she had exceeded her authority by reporting the observations of the property to the MENTOR officials, essentially the same position Ms. Williams asserted in 2011 when Ms. Koch reported the situation to MENTOR. The MENTOR re-licensing study also documented the failure of the Respondents to cooperate in therapeutic plans developed for the children placed in the home and to supervise the children properly. Ms. Williams often refused to cooperate with the therapeutic plans and goals Ms. Koch developed for the children in the Respondents' foster home. Ms. Williams apparently concluded that she was better able to address the needs of a therapeutic foster child than was Ms. Koch, but the evidence failed to support such a conclusion. Ms. Williams refused to implement standard behavioral therapies suggested by Ms. Koch and opined that they were a "waste of her time." Ms. Williams refused to allow one foster child to have toys purchased for the child by Ms. Koch. Ms. Williams claimed that the child would have destroyed the toys, but Ms. Koch testified they had been purchased to allow the child to have her own possessions for the first time in the child's life and to develop a sense of responsibility. The Respondents routinely put children to bed at an early hour as a means of discipline and refused to comply with Ms. Koch's direction to develop other disciplinary practices. In one discussion with Ms. Koch at the home, Ms. Williams discussed the circumstances of one foster child in the presence of another foster child, violating the confidentiality of the children. The Respondents failed to contact MENTOR staff to address behavioral issues exhibited by children placed in the home and instead called upon law enforcement authorities to respond when a child refused to comply with their directions. The Respondents failed to supervise one child placed in their home sufficiently to prevent the child from accessing pay- per-view pornography on cable television, resulting in a charge in excess of $700 on one bill. It was clear, based on Ms. Williams' testimony and demeanor at the hearing, that Ms. Williams disliked Ms. Koch. Much of Ms. Williams' presentation of evidence during the February 17 portion of the hearing was directed towards discrediting MENTOR and Ms. Koch. After completing the re-licensing study, MENTOR forwarded the application and study to the Department, which received the materials on October 5, 2011. Notwithstanding the continuing problems between MENTOR and the Respondents, MENTOR recommended in the study that the Respondents' home be conditionally re-licensed. The conditions, essentially intended to increase the possibility that the Department would approve the application for re-licensure, were as follows: Reduction in the licensed capacity from two therapeutic individuals to one therapeutic individual. Unannounced visits to monitor the home in terms of food content, refrigerator temperature, client supervision and safety concerns. Continuing monitoring of the foster parents ability to work in conjunction with service providers regarding the best interests of the child. Monitoring to ensure that the living situation of the additional four residents was resolved within six months. Ms. Williams was dissatisfied with the results of the study, disagreed with the proposed conditions, and refused to accept them. While MENTOR (as the supervising agency) was responsible for the evaluation of the application, the Department has the responsibility for the making the final determination regarding licensure or re-licensure of a foster home. The Department considered the MENTOR recommendation when making the licensing decision. The primary focus of the Department's decision was whether the Respondents could provide an appropriate and safe environment for a therapeutic foster placement. The Department has no financial interest in the decision and had no direct contact with the Respondents. As the regional licensing manager for the Department, Kristine Emden was tasked with the responsibility of reviewing the application and materials. Based on her review, Ms. Emden determined that the application should be denied. Ms. Emden based her decision on the Respondents' lack of cooperation with therapeutic programs developed for the children in their care, their failure to supervise children adequately or to maintain confidentiality regarding the children, and their lack of cooperation with the MENTOR personnel who attempted to resolve the identified deficiencies. Additionally, Ms. Emden considered the Respondents' response to issues related to the hazardous conditions of the premises, the lack of financial resources to support a therapeutic foster placement in the home, and the rejection of conditions proposed by MENTOR in the study. Ms. Emden was unable to identify any remedial measures that would alter the denial of the application for re-licensure. The Respondents failed to offer credible evidence to establish that the Department's denial of the application was incorrect or that the application should otherwise be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the license application filed by the Respondents at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially licensed to operate a foster home in 1992. In April 1995, her license was renewed. As part of the licensing process, the Respondent signed documents entitled "Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for Dependent Children" and "Discipline Policy", thereby agreeing to comply with the terms of each document. Both of these documents clearly provide that corporal punishment of a foster child is prohibited. On October 30, 1995, Petitioner notified Respondent by letter of its intent to revoke her foster home license and stated, in pertinent part, as follows: This letter is to advise you that your Foster Home license is being revoked, effective November 1, 1995. This decision has been made based on our past concerns about inappropriate child-parent visits, the recent complaint about use of physical discipline, and the altercation on 09/18/95 between you and Foster Parent Veronica King. 1/ At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent provided foster care for three teenage girls under the age of 18 years. On September 29, 1995, Petitioner's abuse registry received a report that Respondent had been physically and verbally abusive to the children in her foster care. The report included allegations that Respondent had hit and knocked down one of the girls in her foster care and that she attempted to return the girl to her natural mother, who had abused her daughter in the past. In response to that report, Petitioner removed the three girls from Respondent's foster care and began an investigation of the allegations. As part of that investigation, Respondent and each of the three girls were interviewed by employees of the Petitioner with appropriate training. The three girls who had been in Respondent's foster care made statements to these employees pertaining to their treatment by Respondent. These statements are hearsay that cannot be used as the sole basis for a finding of fact in this proceeding. 2/ In her interview, Respondent denied that she physically abused her foster children, but she admitted that she intentionally pushed one of the girls to the ground. Respondent violated Petitioner's discipline policy by pushing this girl to the ground. Respondent denied that she threatened to return one of the girls to the girl's abusive mother. Instead, she testified that she arranged for this girl to visit with the abusive mother. There was no competent evidence to dispute Respondent's testimony. Respondent conceded that she talked firmly to the three girls, but she denied that she verbally abused them. There was no competent evidence to dispute Respondent's testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that revokes Respondent's foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Delores Wilson, committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, whether her foster care license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was first licensed as a foster parent in Florida, in or about 2003, after she applied for and was granted a foster care license through Camelot Community Care, Inc. (Camelot), a foster parent licensing agency located in Tampa, Florida. Prior to receiving a foster care license through Camelot, Respondent signed a Letter of Agreement with Camelot. Pursuant to the terms of the Letter of Agreement, Respondent agreed to comply with Camelot's policies. Additionally, the letter advised Respondent that if she violated the policies, foster children would be removed from her home, and the Department would make decisions regarding the revocation of her license. After Respondent was licensed, two foster children, T. and D., were placed in her home. T., a girl, was placed in Respondent's home in November 2003, and D., a boy, was placed there in December 2003. In November 2004, Camelot staff met with Respondent to discuss the foster children who had been placed in her home. At the time of this meeting, D. was 15 or 16 years old and T., who was about 18 years old, was pregnant and due to deliver the baby in a few months. D. had a history of sexually acting out. Because of D.'s history, Camelot's policy was that D. not be placed in a home with younger children. In light of D.'s history and Camelot's policy related thereto, during the November 2004 meeting, Camelot staff told Respondent that when T.'s baby was born, the baby could not live in the same house with D. Therefore, Camelot staff advised Respondent that she would have to choose whether she wanted to continue to work with D. (have D. remain in her home) or assist T. with her baby. Respondent was also told to notify Camelot when the baby was born. In December 2004, Respondent was informed that it was likely that T.'s baby would be adopted or put in foster care upon birth due to T.'s extensive disabilities. Respondent had also been told that the baby would not be given to the mother while she was in the hospital. On January 29 or 30, 2005, T., who was then 19 years old, gave birth to her baby at a hospital. It is unknown what happened at the hospital to alter the proposed adoption or foster care plan for the baby. However, while T. was in the hospital, the baby was given to her. On or about February 1, 2005, T. and the baby left the hospital. Both T. and her baby then went to Respondent's home and lived with her. The reason Respondent allowed T. and the baby to stay with her was because she wanted to help T. Despite regular communications with Camelot staff during the time period after the baby was born, Respondent never told anyone associated with Camelot or the Department that T. had given birth to the baby. Camelot found out about the birth of the baby only after being notified "indirectly" by another waiver support coordinator. D's initial placement with Respondent remained unchanged until February 7, 2005, when Camelot first received reports that T.'s baby was living with Respondent. On that day, Camelot removed D. from Respondent's home. On February 16, 2005, Camelot staff, D.'s waiver support coordinator, a Hillsborough Kids, Inc., case manager, and Respondent met to discuss the situation which resulted in D.'s being removed from Respondent's home on February 7, 2005. At this meeting, the subjects of the November 2004 and December 2004 meetings described in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 above, were also reviewed and discussed. A summary of the February 16, 2005, meeting was reported in a letter dated February 28, 2005, written by Camelot's clinical director, who attended that meeting. A copy of the letter was furnished to several persons who attended the meeting, including Respondent. The letter expressly stated that anyone who had further comments or concerns should contact the clinical director. Respondent never contacted the clinical director or anyone at Camelot regarding the contents of the February 28, 2005, letter. The discussion at the February 16, 2005, meeting focused on D. and the circumstances surrounding his removal from Respondent's home. Camelot staff specifically discussed Respondent's decision to allow T. and T.'s baby to live with Respondent, after being told that this should not happen and her failure to notify Camelot that the baby had been born and was in her home. During this meeting, Respondent never denied the foregoing facts. Rather, Respondent explained that she allowed T. and her baby to stay with her was so that she (Respondent) could help T. As a result of Respondent's failure to disclose to Camelot staff that T. had given birth to the baby and that both T. and the baby were living with Respondent, Camelot placed Respondent's foster home license on inactive status in or about late February 2005. Camelot advised Respondent of this decision at the February 16, 2005, meeting. In addition to placing Respondent's license on inactive status, Camelot also recommended that Respondent not be re-licensed as a foster parent. Respondent's foster care license was set to expire on July 31, 2005. After Respondent's foster care license issued by Camelot expired, she applied to Florida Mentor, another foster care licensing agency, for licensure as a foster parent. Florida Mentor reviewed Respondent's application for foster care licensure. As part of its review, Florida Mentor conducted a home study, the results of which were summarized in a report titled, "Annual Re-Licensing Home Study-2005" (Home Study Report or Report), which was completed on or about October 27, 2005. During the review process, Florida Mentor learned that Respondent had been previously licensed by Camelot and that the license had been placed on inactive status and allowed to expire. Based on information obtained from the Department's licensure file on Respondent and/or information provided by Respondent, Florida Mentor also learned about the circumstances discussed in paragraph 13, that caused Camelot to remove a foster child from Respondent's home and to place her foster care license on inactive status. Florida Mentor staff met with Respondent and discussed the situation involving D., T., and T.'s baby that occurred when she was licensed by Camelot. Respondent did not deny that she had violated Camelot's policy and had brought T. and T's baby to her home when D. was still there. Instead, Respondent acknowledged that she realized that her decision to bring T.'s baby home resulted in her clients being removed from her home and Camelot's decision to place her license on inactive status. Notwithstanding Respondent's admitting that she had failed to adhere to Camelot's policy regarding allowing T.'s baby in her home when D. was still there, she expressed to the Florida Mentor staff her desire to continue to work as a foster parent. Florida Mentor staff acknowledged Respondent's desire to serve as a foster parent. However, in light of her failure to comply with Camelot's policies and procedures, Florida Mentor staff discussed with Respondent the importance of communication and honesty with the foster care agency and the adherence to the policies and decisions of the agency. Florida Mentor considered several factors in its review of Respondent's application for a foster care license. These factors included Respondent's prior foster care experience with Camelot, including her admission that her violation of Camelot's policy was the reason her license was placed on inactive status; Respondent's statement of her desire to be a foster parent; and her apparent understanding that it was important that she comply with the policies of the foster care agency. Based on its review of the application and the findings and conclusions in the home study report, Florida Mentor recommended that Respondent be re-licensed as a therapeutic foster parent. Based on Florida Mentor's recommendation, Respondent was granted a new foster parent license, which was effective on November 1, 2005. It is that license which is at issue in this proceeding. Prior to issuance of Respondent's November 1, 2005, foster care license, Respondent was required to sign a Bilateral Service Agreement (Bilateral Agreement). That Bilateral Agreement set forth the terms and conditions with which all affected parties, the Department, the foster care agency, and Respondent must comply. The Bilateral Agreement was executed by Respondent and by a Florida Mentor staff person, on behalf of the Department, on October 4, 2005. Pursuant to the Bilateral Agreement, Respondent agreed to "notify the Department immediately of a potential change in . . . living arrangements or family composition (who is in the home), employment, significant health changes or any other condition that may affect the child's well being." In November 2005, after Respondent received her new foster care license, foster children were placed in Respondent's home. One child, M.J., was placed with Respondent on November 15, 2005. Two other children, S.C. and M.C., who were brothers, were place with Respondent on December 19, 2005. On January 8, 2006, M.J., S.C., and M.C., the three foster children who had been placed with Respondent in November and December 2005, were still living in Respondent's home. On January 8, 2006, a child protective investigator with the Department conducted a home study of Respondent's home. The purpose of the home study was to determine whether Respondent's home was a safe placement for her two grandchildren, and, if so, should the grandchildren be placed with Respondent. A placement for the two children was necessary because they had been taken from their mother, Respondent's daughter, for alleged abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The child protective investigator completed the home study on January 8, 2006, and reported the information she obtained during the home study on a seven-page Department form titled, "Caregiver Home Study." The completed Caregiver Home Study document was signed by Respondent and her son-in-law, Richard Davis, on January 8, 2006. Two categories included on the Caregiver Home Study form required Respondent to provide information regarding members of her household. One of the categories on the form required Respondent to provide the names of adults living or frequently in the prospective caregiver's home. The other category required that Respondent also list or provide the names, sex, and ages of children living in her home. On the Caregiver Home Study form, Richard Davis, Respondent's son-in-law, was listed as an adult who lived in or was frequently in Respondent's home. Based on information Respondent provided to the child protective investigator on January 8, 2006, the child protective investigator recorded on the Caregiver Home Study form that there were two foster children living in Respondent's home, A.C. and his brother, M.C. On January 8, 2006, in addition to A.C. and M.C., there was a third foster child, M.J., also living with Respondent. However, although there were three foster children living with Respondent on January 8, 2006, she never told the child protective investigator that M.J. was living in her home. Therefore, M.J. was not listed on the Caregiver Home Study form as a child living in Respondent's home. The Caregiver Home Study form required that Mr. Davis, the other adult living or frequently in the prospective caregiver's home, and Respondent sign the completed form. Both Respondent and Mr. Davis signed the Caregiver Home Study form on January 8, 2006. By signing the form, both Respondent and Mr. Davis acknowledged that to the best of their knowledge, "I have given the Department truthful information on all questions asked of me." On March 14, 2006, the assigned caseworker for A.C. and his brother M.C., two of the three foster children in Respondent's home, made an unannounced home visit to Respondent's home to check on those two children. During this visit, the case worker observed A.C. and M.C., as well as two other children there. The other two children the caseworker observed were Respondent's grandchildren who had been placed in Respondent's home after the Caregiver Home Study was completed on January 8, 2006. Respondent's two grandchildren had been placed with her since January 2006 and were still living with her on March 14, 2006. However, during the case worker's unannounced visit on March 14, 2006, Respondent told the caseworker that the two grandchildren did not live with her, but that she was babysitting them until their mother got off from work. After the March 14, 2006, visit to Respondent's home, the caseworker searched HomeSafe Net to determine the status of Respondent's grandchildren. That search revealed that the grandchildren were actually sheltered and living with Respondent. The caseworker also contacted an employee of the Safe Children Coalition, an agency which has a contract with the Department, to obtain information regarding the status of Respondent's grandchildren. An employee with Safe Children Coalition confirmed that the Sheriff's Office had placed Respondent's grandchildren with Respondent on January 8, 2006, and that, as of March 14, 2006, Respondent's grandchildren were still living with her. At the time of the March 14, 2006, 30-day visit, and at no time prior thereto, Florida Mentor was unaware that Respondent's grandchildren were living with Respondent. Respondent never notified Florida Mentor or the Department that her grandchildren had been placed with her and were living in her home. By failing to notify the Department or Florida Mentor of the change in the family composition, the people living in the home, Respondent violated the terms of the Bilateral Agreement. In order to provide for the safety and health of all the children placed in Respondent's care, it is imperative that the agency placing the foster children be immediately advised of any potential or actual change in the family composition, those living in the home. Since being licensed as a foster parent in Florida, Respondent repeatedly disregarded her obligation to advise the foster care agency of important and required changes. In three instances, Respondent failed to inform the appropriate agency of the changes in the composition of persons living in her home. The second and third incidents occurred after and while Respondent was licensed by Florida Mentor, after she had been specifically advised of the importance and need to communicate and be honest with the foster care agency and to adhere to the agency's policies. First, Respondent failed to advise Camelot staff when T.'s baby was born, and Respondent allowed T. to bring her newborn baby to Respondent's home to live. Respondent ignored or disregarded the directive of Camelot staff, who had told her that T.'s baby could not live in Respondent's home because of the sexual history of D., a foster child placed in Respondent's home. Respondent testified that D. was not in her home on February 1, 2005, when T.'s newborn baby was brought home, because Camelot had placed D. in respite care. According to Respondent, D. returned for one day, before he was permanently removed from her home and placed in another foster home. Respondent's testimony, discussed in paragraph 45 above, is not credible and is contrary to the competent evidence which established that D. was removed from Respondent's home on February 7, 2005, and then placed in another home. Even if D. were not physically in Respondent's house when T.'s baby was there, because D. was still a foster child placed in Respondent's home, she was responsible for notifying the Department of the change in the composition of her household. However, Respondent failed to notify Camelot or the Department and, in doing so, violated a Department rule and a specific directive of the foster care agency. In the second incident, Respondent failed to disclose to the child protective investigator that she had three foster children. Respondent testified that she was not untruthful to the child protective investigator about the number of foster children who were living in her home. According to Respondent, she never said how many foster children lived in her home. Instead, Respondent testified that the child protective investigator made that presumption after she (the investigator) saw two "yellow jackets" (files about the foster children) on a table in Respondent's house. Respondent's testimony, discussed in paragraph 47, is not credible and ignores the fact that Respondent signed the Caregiver Home Study form indicating that she had only two foster children living in the home. Moreover, having served as a foster parent for about ten years and in two states, Respondent knew the importance and significance of providing accurate information regarding the composition of the family and how that information might impact additional placements (i.e., the placement of her grandchildren) in Respondent's home. In the third instance, while licensed by Florida Mentor, Respondent failed to notify that agency or the Department of a change in the family composition (i.e., who is in the home) that occurred on January 8, 2006, when Respondent's two grandchildren were placed in her home. The agency first learned that Respondent's grandchildren lived with her only after a case worker made an unannounced visit to Respondent's home on March 14, 2006, and saw Respondent's grandchildren there, and later verified that the grandchildren were living with Respondent. Respondent does not deny that she failed to notify the Department that her grandchildren were living with her. However, Respondent testified that she never told the case worker that her grandchildren did not live with her and that she was babysitting them while their mother worked. This testimony by Respondent is not credible and is contrary to the credible testimony of the case worker and the supporting documentary evidence. Respondent was aware of the policy that required her to immediately notify the Department or foster care agency of a potential change in family composition. In fact, Respondent signed a Bilateral Agreement in which she agreed to provide such notification to the Department or the Department's representative. Nonetheless, on two occasions, after being licensed by Florida Mentor and having foster children placed in her home, Respondent failed to notify the Department of actual changes in her family's composition. Respondent deliberately violated the terms of the Bilateral Agreement that required her to notify the Department or the foster care agency of any potential, and certainly any actual, changes in her family composition. This provision is designed to better ensure the health and safety of the foster children placed with foster parents, such as Respondent. There is no indication that the children placed in Respondent's home at the time relevant to this proceeding were harmed or injured. Nonetheless, the harm which the Department's policy is designed to prevent is not only possible, but more likely to occur when the composition of the foster parent changes and the Department is not notified of that change. Without such knowledge, the Department lacks the information it needs to make decisions regarding the placement and/or continued placement of foster children in a particular foster home. As a result of Respondent's failing to provide information relative to her family composition, she also failed to provide information necessary and required to verify her compliance with the Department's rules and regulations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services, enter a final order revoking Respondent, Delores Wilson's, foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) may revoke Respondent's family foster care license due to her continued contact with her husband after he was convicted of sexual molestation of their teen-aged daughter.
Findings Of Fact Lila and Charles Dean were licensed foster parents from 1986 through 1991, when they adopted their daughter who was then six years old. The couple subsequently had two natural daughters. In January 2001, the 16-year-old adopted daughter reported that Charles Dean had been sexually abusing her for approximately two years. Lila Dean immediately had Charles Dean move out of the family home. She has been consistently supportive of their daughter and went with her through the whole abuse and rehabilitation system. Charles Dean was convicted in 2001 of sexually abusing his adopted daughter and is a registered sex offender. Lila Dean has been separated from Charles Dean since January 2001, but she has not filed for divorce. On March 13, 2002, Lila Dean was relicensed by DCF as a family foster parent. George Payne, DCF Family Counselor III, testified that during the family foster home re-licensing process prior to March 13, 2002, Lila Dean admitted to him that she was seeing her husband away from the home once every two or three months to discuss child support, insurance, etc., and that he had no contact with the children. She also admitted that with the permission of his probation officer, Charles Dean had come to the home, while the children were at school, to make needed repairs. At Mr. Payne's urging, she promised to get someone else to make any future repairs. The licensing process took eleven months because of DCF's concerns about Mrs. Dean's contacts with her husband, but DCF licensed her individually on March 13, 2002, because of her previous excellent record as a foster parent in another district supervised by Mr. Payne from 1985 to 1989. On May 13, 2002, upon receiving an abuse report that Mrs. Dean had been having regular contacts with her husband; that Mrs. Dean had made comments in the community that Mr. Dean's sexual abuse was not that serious because the girl was his adopted, not his biological child; and that Mrs. Dean had spoken on Mr. Dean's behalf requesting that he be spared a prison sentence, DCF removed the two non-verbal, toddler, foster children who were then in Mrs. Dean's foster care and instituted a further abuse investigation. After the abuse report had been received regarding Mrs. Dean's 2002 contacts with her husband, she told Mr. Payne that she was not looking for a relationship with any other men because they might want a sexual relationship with her, but that sex was not an issue with her husband, so she felt comfortable with him. The abuse report, which related the couple's more frequent contacts, suggests the family is "working toward reconciliation," something Mrs. Dean has denied to Mr. Payne. The abuse report verifies the old abuse information as to the adopted daughter. It does not verify the tipster's allegation that Mrs. Dean does not view Mr. Dean's molestation of their adopted daughter as less serious than it would have been with a natural daughter. There is no direct testimony or otherwise reliable evidence on this issue, on the issue of whether or not she has spoken publicly on his behalf, or on the issue of whether or not a reconciliation is anticipated. There is no evidence that Charles Dean has been in the home since Lila Dean was relicensed. DCF sent a license revocation letter to Mrs. Dean after becoming aware of the increasing frequency of her contacts with her husband. The basis for revocation was given as: . . . pursuant to Section 409.175(8)(b)3. [now Section 409.175(9)(b)3] Florida Statutes, because your continued and repeated contacts with Charles Dean are inconsistent and incompatible with your role as a foster parent. It is not in the best interests of vulnerable foster children to be placed with a foster parent who considers it appropriate to have a relationship with a registered sex offender. [Clarification of statutory citation agreed-to and supplied]. Mr. Payne was unaware of any DCF rules Mrs. Dean broke by having contact with her husband. Mr. Payne has no indication that any children, natural or foster, were at greater risk post-licensing than pre- licensing due to Mr. And Mrs. Dean's increased contact. DCF cannot constantly monitor a foster parent to ensure that the children in her care are not placed at risk by her personal associations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order reinstating the family foster home license of Lila Dean and specifically limiting any appearance on the foster home premises by Charles Dean. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Robert Vest, Esquire 613 St. Johns Avenue Suite 212 Post Office Box 2525 Palatka, Florida 32177 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact In August, 1980, the home of Jacob and Donna Vermeulen was licensed by Petitioner as a pre-school foster home. Under that licensure, the Vermeulens were able to care for children from birth to four years of age. The subject of this proceeding, hereinafter referred to as S.L., was born on May 26, 1976. When S.L. was four years old he and his younger sister were removed from the custody of his natural mother (after he witnessed the homicide by bludgeoning of his father by his mother) because S.L. and his sister had been physically abused by both natural parents. Petitioner placed S.L. and his sister into the Vermeu1en foster home. After S.L. and his sister had been living with the Vermeulens for approximately six months, Petitioner removed them from the Vermeulen home and returned them to the custody of their natural mother. After approximately six months, the two children were again removed from their natural mother since she again physically abused them. Petitioner requested the Vermeulens to again take custody of S.L. and his sister. The Vermeulens were reluctant to do so since both S.L, and his sister were now older than was allowed under the Vermeulens' license, and because S.L. had problems relating with the other foster children living in that home during his first stay there. However, Petitioner's social workers begged the Vermeulens to take the children back since Petitioner was unable to find any other placement for S.L. The Vermeulens agreed to make their home available to S.L. and his sister, and the two children thereafter lived in the Vermeulen home for approximately two and one-half years prior to April 16, 1984. S.L. is a difficult child to care for; he is very emotional, developmentally immature, fearful, and fidgety. He has difficulty sleeping or listening, has a very low self-esteem, and is unable to complete tasks since he becomes emotionally frustrated. Not only is S.L. a clumsy child (most probably due to medication), he also throws himself onto the floor and onto his toys, both as part of his aggressive play behavior and also in conjunction with throwing temper tantrums. S.L. initiates fights in school, on the school bus and at home with the other children in the Vermeulen home to such an extent that fighting somewhere would have been almost a daily occurrence. His excessive demands for attention were often accompanied by negative behavior, such as hitting other children and throwing temper tantrums. On December 21, 1983, S.L. was evaluated by psychiatrist Josephine Perez. Perez diagnosed S.L. as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity. Perez determined that the high dosages of anti-psychoic medication that S.L. had been taking were inappropriate, and she prescribed different medication for him. Perez recalls that during S.L.'s initial evaluation in December she noticed that his legs and arms were filled with bruises. S.L. began treating weekly with Perez from January 16, 1984, until April 16, 1984. On each visit at least one of the Vermeulens was present, and each visit contained a seasion between Perez and the foster parent discussing the child's progress and training the foster parent in the use of behavioral modification techniques. During those several months S.L. appeared at Perez's office on one occasion with a black eye and on another occasion with a bruising above his eye. One injury resulted from a fall in the bath tub, and another resulted from a fall out of bed; both falls were probably attributable to changes Perez made in S.L.'s medication. The Vermeulens discussed both incidents with Perez since they were concerned that S.L,'s medication was still not in the proper dosage. The Vermeulens testified that sometimes when S.L.'s medication was changed, he was unable to control even his arms and was unable to sit still long enough to eat. In January, 1984, when S.L. began treating with Dr. Perez there were six children living in the Vermeulen home: four foster children, one adopted child, and one natural child. The Vermeulens and Dr. Perez discussed the number of children living in the Vermeulen home, which prohibited giving S.L. the excessive amount of time required by him to satisfy his need for attention. Perez told the Vermeulens that in her professional opinion S.L. should be in a home with no more than one other child. In turn, the Vermeulens told Perez that they had been requesting Petitioner to remove S.L. from their home out of their concern (1) for S.L. since he needed so much more attention than was available to him and (2) for the other children not only because S.L. would kick and hit them but also because the Vermeulens had discovered S.L. in his sister's bedroom standing over her with a knife in his hand on two occasions. Although Perez agreed that S.L. should be placed a different foster setting, she did nothing to assist in obtaining a different placement and did not discuss with any employee of the Petitioner ("HRS") her recommendation and the Vermeulens' desire that S.L. be placed in a setting, preferably, where he was the only child. The Vermeulens, however, continued to request of HRS employees, including the visiting social workers and medical personnel, that S.L. be removed from their home, with visitation rights being given to the Vermeulens if possible. During this time period the Vermeulens determined that they wished to adopt Michelle, a foster child in their care. On Friday, April 13, 1984, an HRS employee went to the Vermeulen home to discuss that petition for adoption and to advise the Vermeulens that HRS would not allow them to adopt Michelle. Mr. and Mrs. Vermeulen S.L., and the rest of the children living in the home were present during that discussion. The Vermeulens were advised that they would not be permitted to adopt Michelle so long as S.L. was living in their home since he is a "therapeutic foster child" and Petitioner's rules would prohibit the adoption while a "therapeutic child" was in the home. Mrs. Vermeulen was unable to understand Petitioner's position: its refusal to remove S.L. from her home after repeated requests and its refusal to allow her to adopt Michelle for the reason that S.L. was in her home. Mrs. Vermeulen became upset, and S.L. told her and Petitioner's employee to put him in a foster home indicating he would rather be sent away than prevent Michelle from being adopted by the Vermeulens. Since the HRS employee was having a difficult time discussing HRS's position, she left the Vermeulen home. On Friday, April 13, 1984, or on Monday, April 16, 1984, S.L. became involved in a fight on the school bus on the way home from school. The bus driver told Mrs. Vermeulen about the fight. On Monday April 16, 1984, Mrs. Vermeulen took S.L. to his weekly therapy session with Dr. Perez. During that session, S.L. indicated to Perez that he had been bad and had been "paddled" on the legs. He would give her no details, but Perez believed it was Donna Vermeulen who paddled S.L. Rather than discuss it with Mrs. Vermeulen, Perez acted as though nothing had been said. Further, although a medical doctor, she did not examine S.L. Instead, Perez discussed with Mrs. Vermeulen behavioral modification techniques to be utilized with S.L. and sent them home. She then telephoned HRS, and a child abuse report was completed. On April 18, 1984, an HRS employee went to S.L.'s school, removed the child from his class, and took the child to be examined by the Child Protection Team. S.L. was first examined by the nurse. When S.L. was unable to explain to the nurse from where each mark on his body originated (or refused to), she interrogated him with questions such as "Did your mommy hit you?" The nurse made notations on a chart indicating numerous marks or bruises on S.L.'s body. However, an HRS employee saw S.L. disrobed when he was being examined by the doctor on the team and saw only two marks on his lower back. Other HRS employees went to the Vermeulen home and removed all the children. No one discussed the incident or accusation with either Mr. or Mrs. Vermeulen until the following day. Until he was removed from her class on April 18, 1984, S.L. was taught by Debbie Froug an Exceptional Education teacher for emotionally disturbed children. Although Froug describes S.L. as a basically honest child, she testified that he sometimes gets very confused. A careful review of the videotaped testimony of S.L. and of the conflicting testimony of the witnesses in this case indicates that Froug's latter description is probably an understatement. No witness in this case heard the same explanation (or accusation) as any other witness. S.L's videotaped testimony illustrates why: there is no statement made by S.L. that is not contradicted by him a few seconds later. For example the videotaped deposition contains on page 27 the following: O. Did you ever have a black eye? A. No. O. Didn't you talk to Dr. Perez about having a black eye once? A. Yes, but I didn't. How did you get the black eye? One of the kids on the bus. Things stated in the affirmative by S.L. in his deposition are also stated in the negative in that same deposition. Further, it is sometimes impossible to ascertain if S.L. is describing being hit by his real father, by his real mother, or by his foster mother. Although no accusation appears to ever have been made, including in the Administrative Complaint, that Jacob Vermeulen ever struck S.L., by the time of S.L.'s deposition eight months after the alleged incident when S.L. was asked if Jacob ever hit him, that question was answered in the affirmative. In short, the evidence is clear that S.L. had some bruises or marks on his body on April 18, 1984; that those bruises or marks were both received accidentally and intentionally inflicted, and that the bruises or marks on S.L.'s body were received as a result of S.L. falling from being uncoordinated or overmedicated, from S.L. flinging himself onto the floor or onto or against objects, and from being hit or kicked by other children with whom S.L. engaged in almost-daily physical combat. Donna and Jacob Vermeulen used only approved behavior modification techniques with S.L. and did not hit S.L. with or without any object, spank S.L., or otherwise inflict physical abuse upon him. Although the Vermeulens' license as a foster home was in effect at all times material hereto, it has lapsed. A foster home license is not automatically renewed but rather requires an annual licensing study. Other than "the incident" charged herein the Vermeulens have received no prior complaints from HRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is REC0MENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Administrative Complaint filed herein and directing that any licensure study performed regarding the renewal or extension of Respondents' license be made omitting therefrom consideration of any of the matters set forth herein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July,1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 1070 Miami, Florida 33128 Thomas J. Walsh, Esquire 590 English Avenue Homestead, Florida 33030 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should deny Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster home care for dependent children pursuant to Section 409.175, Florida Statutes (1999). (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating foster care in the state. Petitioners were foster care parents until October 5, 2000, when Petitioners voluntarily surrendered their foster care license for medical reasons. Prior to October 5, 2000, Mrs. Williams suffered from high blood pressure and dizziness. She was physically unable to care for foster children and asked that Respondent remove all foster children from her home. Before her medical problems began, Mrs. Williams complained to Respondent that she could not provide foster care for children with behavior problems. Mrs. Williams asked Respondent to remove certain children from her home because they presented behavioral problems with which she could not cope. In March of 2001, Petitioners applied for a new license to provide foster care. Petitioners did not provide any medical evidence, during the hearing or the application process, that Mrs. Williams has recovered from her medical problems. Her medical problems have a long medical history and come and go each year. Mrs. Williams is 62 years old. On the family profile sheet filed with Respondent, Mrs. Williams lists her occupation as "disabled."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster care to dependent children. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Wilbert and Estella Williams 412 Pine Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services, District 7 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
