Findings Of Fact Petitioner has had a relationship with his wife since they were 16 years old. At the time the hearing was conducted, husband and wife were 24 years old. They had been married for approximately three years and had a child who was four years old. Beginning February 1995, Petitioner became suspicious that his wife was having an affair with another man. Around that time, the couple argued several times a week. This would cause Petitioner to leave their home. In addition, Petitioner and Mrs. McCall would not speak to each other for a couple of days following these arguments. On March 16, 1995, the man with whom Petitioner's wife was having the relationship called the couple's home. On that occasion, Mrs. McCall would not say who was speaking to her on the telephone and appeared secretive. It led to a further argument between Petitioner and Mrs. McCall. Petitioner then grabbed his keys and started to leave. Mrs. McCall struggled with him to get the keys out of his hand. During the struggle, Mrs. McCall was scratched on her chest. The noise that the couple made was sufficiently noticeable that the neighbors called the police to investigate. When the police arrived at Petitioner's home on March 16, 1995, Petitioner was sitting on the couch. The police noticed the visible marks on Mrs. McCall's chest. Consequently, Petitioner was charged with battery under Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. On March 18, 1995, Petitioner pled no contest to the offense of battery for the incident that took place on March 16, 1995 involving his wife. He was given two days unsupervised probation and required to pay $75.00 in court costs. The court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of the offense. After the March 16, 1995 incident the McCalls continued to argue. On April 11, 1995, when Petitioner left home to go to work that morning, he told Mrs. McCall that he was going to leave work in the afternoon and travel to Deland, Florida, to see his father. Instead, Petitioner went home that afternoon to get some papers before making the trip to see his father. When he arrived at his home a person named Renee, Mrs. McCall's friend, was watching the McCalls' child in one room, while Mrs. McCall was in bed with her male acquaintance in the McCalls' bedroom. When Petitioner discovered his wife with another man, he began to scream and yell and picked up his son to leave the home. Mrs. McCall tried to intervene and stop Petitioner from leaving the home with her son. During the course of this incident, Petitioner grabbed his wife by the arms and pushed her aside, causing her to fall against the wall. The areas upon which she was grabbed by Petitioner were bruised. Mrs. McCall is prone to bruising because she is a hemophiliac. Their child was not harmed during this physical exchange between the couple. After the exchange, Petitioner left the home and went to Deland, leaving the child with his mother. Before discovering his wife in bed with the other man, Petitioner did not know, as a matter of fact, that his wife was having a relationship with that person. When Petitioner discovered his wife in bed with the other man, he did not threaten her, notwithstanding the yelling and screaming. Renee had called the police when Petitioner arrived at the home, but the police did not arrive for one-half hour to one hour after Petitioner had left the home. Mrs. McCall was concerned about how her husband would react beyond the point where he had discovered her with another man. Therefore, she determined to make a complaint about her husband's physical activity in which he bruised her arms. Based upon that complaint, the police determined to arrest Petitioner. Following the trip to Deland Petitioner came back that night and spent the night with a friend in Jacksonville, Florida. The next morning Petitioner called Mrs. McCall and inquired concerning the circumstances of their exchange. Mrs. McCall told him that she had called the police after he left because she was afraid of what he might do to her and that made her "press charges". Petitioner responded by telling his wife where he was located and telling her to have the police come to that location and pick him up, which they did. When the police arrested Petitioner for the events on April 11, 1995, they again charged him with a violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, and made mention that the battery for which he was accused was associated with domestic violence. Following the arrest, Mrs. McCall spoke with the state attorney's office to have them drop the charges for the battery that occurred on April 11, 1995. The state attorney's office was unwilling to drop the charges in view of the prior charge dating from March 16, 1995. Petitioner pled no contest to the battery offense related to the April 11, 1995 incident. He was given a 30-day sentence, credited with serving two days of the sentence, and the remaining 28 days of that sentence were suspended, conditioned upon the successful service of probation. The probation was served for nine months. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty for the offense and was required to participate in a program for individuals who had committed offenses involving domestic violence. The program emphasized controlling one's aggression. Petitioner completed the program related to management of his aggression. In the program to deal with domestic violence, Petitioner and other participants were required to discuss the experiences they had concerning domestic violence. The McCalls lived apart from April, 1995 until January, 1996. During that time, Petitioner kept their child for the most part because his living arrangements were more suitable than those under which Mrs. McCall existed. While they were estranged, initially, the couple did not do things together and would separately spend time with their child. At the end of their estrangement the couple began to do things as a family unit. Subsequent to being reunited, the McCalls had been seeing a marriage counselor for about a month at the time the hearing was conducted. The McCalls had been to four sessions with the counselor and intended to continue seeing a marriage counselor in the future. The McCalls described their relationship as improving since they have been reunited. Prior to the events in March and April, 1995, in which Petitioner battered Mrs. McCall in the manner described, Petitioner had never struck his wife. As explained at the hearing, Mrs. McCall is not concerned that her husband will batter her in the future. Petitioner holds a bachelor's degree in psychology. He has one year of study in sociology in a bachelor's-level program. In the past, he worked two and one-half years for ARA Living Centers, providing direct care to adults. He left that position and took employment with an organization known as New Directions. This was a mental-health position, working with children on an out- patient basis. Petitioner held this job for approximately two years. Beyond that point, Petitioner took a position as a child-guidance case worker in a mental-health capacity. It was that position that prompted the screening that was conducted in January, 1996, leading to the decision to disqualify him from that employment. The procedures followed in the disqualification are as detailed in the preliminary statement above. Petitioner contested the decision to deny him an exemption from disqualification. His request to be heard before the Respondent and to seek a formal hearing to contest the preliminary decision by Respondent denying the exemption from disqualification were both timely filed. Before being terminated from his position as a child-guidance counselor based upon the disqualification, Petitioner had worked voluntarily at a group home for children. In the past, when working with children and adults, Petitioner has never been disciplined or reprimanded concerning his conduct in providing that care. Mr. George Robinson is an HRS Protective Services worker. He began work with Respondent on June 12, 1995. Prior to that employment, Mr. Robinson worked in the Mental Health Center in Jacksonville, Florida, as a discharge planner. Mr. Robinson knew Petitioner when they attended college. He considers Petitioner his friend and speaks highly of Petitioner's character. In addition, Mr. Robinson is familiar with Petitioner's work history and recommended that Petitioner receive a position at the Mental Health Center of Jacksonville, Florida, where Petitioner was employed from November 15, 1993 through November 30, 1995. Jane Escobar, M.S.W., Manager, Children's Department for the Mental Health Center of Jacksonville, Inc. refers to Petitioner's work history with that organization. Among the duties Petitioner performed with the organization was as an individual assigned to the Therapeutic Group Home within the Mental Health Center, in which position Petitioner worked with emotionally-disturbed children. This work entailed association with counseling groups, individual social skills training, chart documentation, and recreational activities. It also involved interaction with families and other treating professionals. Following receipt of his bachelor's degree, Petitioner was promoted to a position of mental-health counselor within the Mental Health Center, a position which required him to carry a case load of approximately 15-18 clinical cases, involving individual counseling with children, family work, and often involving seeing the children in their homes, as well as at their schools, and in his office. Petitioner left the position with Mental Health Center of Jacksonville in good standing to pursue a career-enhancing position. Ms. Escobar considers Petitioner to be a well-liked and a highly-respected clinician. Ms. Escobar indicates that the Mental Health Center would willingly return Petitioner to employment if a position were available at the Center. Mr. Val Thomas has written to commend Petitioner for his work as a counselor for Mr. Thomas' son. Mr. Thomas attributes Petitioner's good works for helping the Thomas family to correct problems which their son was having. Ms. Nancy Edmonds, a clinical social worker, speaks favorably of Petitioner, whom she has known in a professional and personal capacity for two years. She is impressed by Petitioner's moral character and finds Petitioner to be an understanding and caring person. She has found him capable of dealing with the most difficult circumstances in their work, without losing his composure. She finds that he works well with children and adolescents. Mr. Brian J. Maxson is the First Step Coordinator at Hubbard House, the facility in which Petitioner participated in group sessions concerning his conduct toward his wife, as a condition of his probation. Mr. Maxson confirms that Petitioner completed that program. At present, Petitioner works with AT&T in soliciting customers to use its services. He had held that position for two months when the hearing commenced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification to work with children in positions of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Cirilo Alvarez, at all times pertinent to the allegations in the complaint, operated an adult congregate living facility in Lake City, Columbia County, Florida, Briar's Haven Adult Care Center, under license number 03-12- 0128-BPS, issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In late July or early August, 1982, Respondent, who is a psychiatric nurse specialist and who works full time at North Florida State Mental Hospital (Hospital) at Macclenny, Florida, took Woodrow Harrison, an elderly patient at that institution, into his home, Briar's Haven Adult Care Center, on pass status from the Hospital for periodic short visits. Ultimately, on July 30, 1982, Harrison was released from Macclenny and began living full time at Respondent's facility. On August 3, 1982, Sharon Stucky, a registered nurse case manager for the North Florida Mental Health Center (Center) in Lake City, Florida, did an intake interview with Harrison, who had just been released from the Hospital and who was living at Respondent's facility. Mr. Harrison was brought into the Center by Respondent's wife. Records from the Hospital pertaining to Harrison, which came to the Center, reflected that he suffered from a seizure disorder and a diabetic condition. His medication consisted of 300 mg. of Dilantin daily and 30 mg. of phenobarbital daily, and he was to receive a daily insulin injection. At the time of his release from the Hospital, he was furnished with a thirty-day supply of these medications. On the afternoon of August 13, 1982, Mr. Alvarez went into the Center with Mr. Harrison and asked to see Ms. Stucky. Respondent indicated that Mr. Harrison was having many physical problems. Earlier in the day, he had taken Harrison back to Macclenny to have him readmitted for seizures, incontinence, etc., even though he was taking his medications, but officials at the Hospital refused to admit him. Mr. Alvarez wanted him admitted to some facility in Lake City. Stucky, indicating she would have to talk with Harrison before taking any action, did so and felt she could see no change in his condition since her first interview of him on August 3, and she decided she could not justify having him recommitted to the mental hospital. Since Stucky wanted to find out if the seizures were the result of a physical problem, and she could not do a physical herself, she requested that Respondent take Harrison to a doctor for an examination. The Respondent again demanded that Harrison be admitted and, when Ms. Stucky refused, stated he would take Harrison to the hospital and leave him. Ms. Stucky talked with her supervisor to see if there was any way that Harrison could be readmitted to Macclenny, and it was determined there was not. When the information was related to Mr. Alvarez, he departed with Mr. Harrison. Respondent then took Harrison to the emergency room at Lake City's Lake Shore Hospital. After a chart was prepared on Harrison, Alvarez departed, leaving Harrison there without his medications. When Alvarez first took Harrison in, he was told there would be an hour wait before Harrison could be seen. Alvarez asked if Harrison could sit there and wait, and the person on duty said, "Yes." Once that was arranged, Respondent left without Harrison. According to a report of the doctor on duty, Harrison was confused and incapable of giving a complaint or history. As a result, evaluation of him was difficult, and his well-being was compromised. Respondent subsequently made no effort to get Harrison's drugs to him by delivering them to Ms. Stuckv, nor did he inquire where Harrison was. Respondent's actions in dropping Mr. Harrison off at the Lake Shore Hospital unsupervised, and only calling to check on his status somewhat later, constitute an intentional abandonment which could have seriously affected Harrison's health, safety, and welfare. Somewhat later the same day, Respondent called Lake Shore Hospital to find out what Harrison's status was, but Harrison had already been placed in another adult care facility by Ms. Stucky when the hospital called her and told her of Harrison's situation. Respondent did not make any other calls. Ms. Stucky visited Harrison daily at this new facility and administered his insulin shot. He appeared to be doing well there and wanted to remain, but on August 17, 1982, he was readmitted to Macclenny, where he currently resides. Harrison is incapable of taking care of himself. He has a poor memory and is somewhat retarded and childlike, according to Stucky. He has no concept of time and could not administer his medicines to himself. He could not understand the need to take his medicine or remember to take it if he could. Since Mr. Harrison was dropped off at Lake Shore without either his medicines or a change of clothing, Stucky made several telephone calls to the Respondent to retrieve them. Mr. Alvarez was always out when she called, and Stucky talked with several different females who answered the phone and with whom she left messages requesting him to call her back. Alvarez did not return any of the calls, but he states he never received them. This is rossible since, he says, neither his mother nor his wife, two of the people at home who may have received the original calls from Stucky, speaks much English. Respondent provided Mr. Harrison with all the clothes he had except those he was wearing when he came from Macclenny. Upon the advice of individuals at Macclenny who he could not remember to identify, Respondent applied for Social Security benefits to support Harrison while he was at Respondent's facility. Because Harrison had no family, Respondent sought the counsel of the legal aid office in Lake City to see if he could be appointed Harrison's legal guardian and was told he could not. In late January or early February, 1983, Respondent received one Social Security check in the amount of $1,900 made out to Harrison and Mrs. Alvarez. This check was not cashed because Harrison was no longer with the Respondent, but was returned to the Social Security Office. Harrison's medicines that were in Respondent's possession when Harrison was taken to the hospital were discarded. Respondent worked with Harrison at Macclenny for about a year before taking him to his own facility. During that time to his knowledge, Harrison never had any seizures. Respondent gave him his medications at Macclenny and knew he needed drugs. When he took Harrison to his facility, he took Harrison's drugs as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order revoking the Adult Congregate Living Facility License of Cirilo Alvarez, doing business as Briar's Haven Adult Care Center. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2002 NW 13th Street, 4th Floor Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Cirilo Alvarez Post Office Box 2392 Lake City, Florida 32055 Mr. David H. Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain records, in accordance with Sections 491.009(2)(q) and (s) and 491.0148, Florida Statutes (1998), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B4-9.002(s), and failing to meet the minimum standards of practice of clinical social work, in accordance with Section 491.009(2)(s), Florida Statutes (1998), by: 1) touching a patient inappropriately and conducting improper "play therapy" or 2) telephoning the client after termination of the therapeutic relationship and inviting the client to lunch, so as to fail to maintain proper boundaries for the therapeutic relationship. If so, an additional issue is the penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been licensed as a clinical social worker, holding license number SW 0002688. The record reveals no prior discipline of Respondent. From May 1996 to March 1998, Respondent conducted approximately 40 therapeutic counseling sessions, on an intermittent basis, with patient B. S. From these sessions, Respondent retained notes or records for about 17 of these sessions, although he submitted invoices to B. S.'s insurer for about 31 sessions. B. S. is a second-grade teacher at a Manatee County school. She initially contacted Respondent to obtain help in dealing with a teenaged son who had been misbehaving in the couple of years since B. S. had obtained a divorce. The child had remained angry about the divorce, and B. S. had been unable to help her child sufficiently through this difficult period. B. S. first visited Respondent in early 1996. Her son only visited Respondent a few times. Although Respondent at first established a file for B. S.'s son, he soon established a file for B. S. and began treating her in a therapeutic setting. The frequency of B. S.'s sessions with Respondent varied over time. Sometimes, sessions were as frequent as weekly. Sometimes, sessions were every two or three weeks. Once, during the approximately two years that the therapeutic relationship continued, B. S. went as long as 4-5 months without visiting Respondent. At all relevant times, Respondent's office was set up with a chair behind a small desk and a couch. A small coffee table separated the couch from the desk. Initially. Respondent sat in the chair, and B. S. sat on the couch. Sometime during the first year of the therapeutic relationship, Respondent began sitting next to B. S. on the couch, rather than remain in his chair during the session. During some sessions, he sat closer to B. S. than he did during other sessions. At one session, possibly the first during which Respondent began sitting on the couch, he asked B. S. if she remembered how her father smelled when she had been a child. Feeling that she had never been sufficiently close to her father to have known how he had smelled, B. S. began crying. Respondent asked if he could sit next to her on the couch, and she said that he could. He asked if he could hold her hand, and she said that he could. He asked if he could hold her, and she said that he could. Respondent then placed his arms around B. S., as she cried into his shoulder. Without asking permission, Respondent began the practice of concluding each session with a hug. One time, Respondent nuzzled into B. S.'s neck and tried to kiss it, but she prevented him from doing so, saying, "we're not going there." On three occasions, toward the end of the therapeutic relationship, Respondent placed a pillow in his lap and instructed B. S. to lie down, placing her head, face up, on the pillow. B. S. would then place her head on the pillow, where it would remain for about 30 minutes, as the session continued. On at least one such occasion, while B. S. was lying with her head on the pillow in Respondent's lap, he leaned down and kissed her forehead, stroked her cheeks, ran his hands through her hair, and said, "I see you. I live my life on the edge, and I bet you do too, don't you [B.]?" B. S. looked into Respondent's eyes and thought that he was looking into her soul. Although Respondent initiated the first two pillow sessions, B. S. asked that they do the last pillow session. B. S. gradually became quite fond of Respondent. For Christmas of 1997, she gave him a present. For another session, B. S. brought a cooler with root beer, ice cream, and two glasses. B. S. found Respondent attractive and began dreaming about him. Shortly prior to the last session, B. S. informed Respondent about the dreams, which revealed the attraction that she was experiencing for her therapist. During their sessions, Respondent would supply personal information about himself. Some of the information was emotionally benign, such as his youth coaching activities. However, some information was emotionally loaded, such as the difficulties that he had been experiencing in his marriage and his uncertainty whether his marriage would continue. At the end of the last session, B. S. and Respondent got up from the couch and engaged in a warm hug. B. S. then said, "you know, Kip [Respondent's first name], I just really love you." Respondent replied, "And I love you too, [B.]" As she listened to her statement and Respondent's response, B. S. suddenly felt conflicting feelings. Outside of Respondent's office, B. S. sat in her car for five minutes, thinking that something in the relationship between her and Respondent was not right. She began to question the scope and direction of her therapy. B. S. decided to return to a previous therapist. In the past, Respondent's secretary would prompt B. S. to schedule appointments by sending her a note. In the past, Respondent had never called B. S. at home for any purpose, including setting another appointment. Except for one telephone call identified below, B. S. did not contact Respondent at any time after the March 1998 appointment. In April 1998, after only about one month since the last session, Respondent called B. S. at home. He offered her continuing support, but B. S. replied that she was "having trouble letting go of the experience," meaning the relationship that had evolved between her and Respondent. Respondent offered to see her anytime the following day, and B. S. replied that she would have to think about it. A couple of months later, in June 1998, Respondent called B. S. again, also at her home. Explaining that he called clients to whom he had become especially close, Respondent said that he missed her. He added, "we'll have to do lunch sometime." B. S. wondered about the purpose of meeting Respondent for lunch because they had never had a session outside of his office or otherwise met outside of his office. B. S. did not accept the invitation. Respondent called B. S. a third time in August 1998. B. S. was having a luncheon with school staff at her home when she received the call. Referring to an upcoming change to B. S.'s insurance, Respondent asked whether they should not get in as many sessions as possible. B. S., who had had counseling experience with three other counselors, replied that she had never had a counselor who had called to invite her to therapy. She asked Respondent what would they do and what goals would they pursue. Respondent replied, "anything you want." B. S. answered, "I'm having conflicting goals about therapy. I don't know." Respondent said that she could reach the next level, meaning that she could advance in her therapy at this time. B. S. said that she would think about returning to therapy with Respondent. After having giving the matter more thought, B. S. called Respondent at his office about one week later and stated that she was not going to make another appointment with him. At the end of the conversation, Respondent told B. S. that he was in the process of the formal dissolution of his marriage. B. S. said that she was sorry to hear that, but she had been rethinking her therapy and had started to think that she had stayed "way too long" with Respondent, and that he had encouraged her to do so. At the end of December 1998, Respondent called B. S. a final time, ostensibly to wish her a happy new year. B. S. did not say anything for a long time, prompting Respondent to say, "you're angry." B. S. replied that she felt conflicted about him. Respondent asked what could he have done differently. B. S. became offended, thinking that, after all, Respondent was the professional. She answered that she was not returning to therapy, and he needed to quit calling her. Drawing upon a conversation that she had had with a daughter who is a counselor and some material that B. S. had read, B. S. then asked, "what about that counter-transference?" Respondent replied that he had been going through a difficult time, and he hoped that B. S. did not think badly of him. B. S. ended the conversation by telling Respondent that she did not want him to call her again. Respondent said that he would not call her again, and he never did. At no time did Respondent ever lock the door to the office during any session. At all times, a secretary remained outside the closed door. At no time did Respondent ever touch a B. S.'s breast, groin, or buttocks. Petitioner's expert witness attempted to establish that Respondent had improperly used play therapy with B. S. However, among the deficiencies in this testimony was the witness's conditional condemnation of this practice, even as applied to an adult. The present record therefore does not support findings or conclusions barring the use of play therapy with adults in all cases or even this case. However, Petitioner's expert witness established that Respondent had crossed a boundary at some point in the therapeutic relationship. It is unnecessary to identify, in isolation, any single act or omission of Respondent that impermissibly crossed the boundary that must exist between the therapist and the patient. In combination, a number of Respondent's acts and omissions combined to establish his failure to respect the boundary that must exist between the therapist and patient for effective therapy to take place in a setting that is reasonably safe for the patient. As Petitioner's expert witness observed, transference, in which the patient develops feelings of attachment toward the therapist, is not unusual. Respondent contested the notion of transference. However, whether a patient experiences transference or merely the development of a personal attraction toward the therapist, this process, by whatever name, underscores the fiduciary obligation owed by the therapist to the patient. The competent therapist uses personal attachment as an opportunity to help the patient develop the skill to process, rather than act upon, her feelings. The competent therapist can deal with the emotions of the patient toward the therapist in a safe, controlled setting, and, by handling the issue properly, help the patient confront other settings--less safe and controlled--in which she can develop and apply the same skills, when necessary, to process, rather than act upon, her emotions. Respondent repeatedly displayed his incompetence in treating B. S. In his hands, play therapy was an automatic weapon, whose firing Respondent could start, but could not stop. As B. S. eventually intuited, Respondent had no idea where the therapy was leading, or where it should lead. Instead, he recklessly joined in the emotional intensity that he was unleashing, such as by his comments about living on the edge, placing B. S.'s head on a pillow in his lap for extended periods while he kissed her forehead, stroked her cheeks and ran his hands through her hair, nuzzling and trying to kiss B. S.'s neck, and stating that he loved her. The impropriety of this behavior is exacerbated by the unmistakable signs of attachment that B. S. was displaying, as she had recounted her romantic dreams featuring Respondent, displayed her growing affection for him with a small gift and "office picnic," and finally declared, in an unguarded moment, love for her therapist. Eventually, the therapy turned to serve Respondent's needs, as evidenced by his entirely inappropriate disclosure about marital problems. When B. S. discontinued attending sessions, the real focus of the therapy--the needs of Respondent, not B. S.--emerged, as Respondent repeatedly pursued B. S. to return to the office, or at least meet him for lunch, even though B. S. revealed to him that she had concluded that the professional relationship had been lost and was no longer serving her needs. By the calls in August 1998, it was obvious that Respondent had lost the last vestiges of clinical detachment when he confessed that his marriage was failing. It is difficult and unpleasant to characterize the December 1998 call. Long ago, Respondent had crossed the boundary that the professional must maintain for the benefit and safety of the client. The prior summer, Respondent had revealed himself as an emotionally needy person in what should have been a professional relationship. Perhaps, most generously, the December 1998 call is best characterized as final confirmation that Respondent had long since lost the therapeutic goal of B. S.'s treatment and had forgotten what this goal ever had been. Petitioner has proved that Respondent has failed to meet the minimum standards of performance of his profession when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, including the undertaking of activities for which the licensee is not qualified through training or experience.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling enter a final order placing Respondent's license on probation for five years (upon such restrictions as the Board deems fit to protect the public), imposing a fine of $2000, and requiring the completion of 100 hours of continuing education, in such areas that are approved by the Board as necessary to eliminate Respondent's deficiencies. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 15th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Ellen M. Simon Assistant General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Dirk Lorenzen Caruana and Lorenzen, P.A. 1000 Courthouse Tower Miami, Florida 33130 Dr. John O. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William L. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification to serve as a foster parent because of the matters alleged in the Department's letter of denial dated June 7, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was the state agency responsible for the licensing of, inter alia, foster homes and foster parents in Florida, and for the granting of expemptions from disqualification for licensing for persons who otherwise would net be eligible for licesning due to prior misconduct. Petitioner, Robert Mallan, was convicted in Circuit Court in Hillsborough County of kidnapping and grand theft - 3rd degree, on November 12, 1991. The kidnapping related to the ten year old son of the boyfriend of a female friend of the Petitioner, Ms. Lilly. While admitting his participation and liability for the incident, Petitioner contends that the boy was taken by the young lady in an effort to exact revenge against her lover, the boy's father, for abusing her and to scare him so he would not touch her aqain. Petitioner's part, he asserts, was to rent the motel room where the child was taken for the woman and her accomplice sister, and when the plot began to fall apart, the two women implicated him. Ms. Lilly's testimony in a deposition given in August, 1991, prior to the criminal trial, paint a far more sinister participation by the Petitioner. Regardless of the motive for the act, Petitioner was found guilty of the offenses alleged, including the grand theft charge, and because some members of the jury hearing his case recommended clemency, he was sentenced as a youthful offender and was incarcerated for approximately eighteen months as a result thereof. Petitioner's wife, Jennifer Mallan, met and developed a relationship with two children in February, 1992. These children, the two S. boys, were the natural children of Johnnie Marie Roye, whose parental rights have been terminated. Desiring to take care of the children, Ms. Mallan undertook training as a foster parent through the Family Enrichment Center in Hillsborough County which trains, educates and assesses potential operators of foster homes for licensure. Ms. Mallan's home was subsequently licensed as a foster home in October 1994, prior to her marriage to the Petitioner, and became the foster home to the two S. boys. Petitioner met the children in August 1992, well before he and Jennifer were married, and he developed a good relationship with them. Once Ms. Mallan married the Petitioner, it becamae necessary for him to receive the foster parent training as well in order for the two S. boys to remain in the Mallan home. Therefore, as a part of the paper work incidental to his licensure, which, according to Ms. Wiliams, the Executive Director of the FEC, consisted of approximately twenty separate documents, Mr. Mallan filled out the form to initiate a background check. This check when completed in December 1994, revealed no record of any conviction. For some reason, however, a second background check, to include fingerprints, was required in the latter part of 1995. Incidental to that check, Petitioner filled out an Affidavit of Good Moral Character in September 5, 1995 on which, under penalty of perjury, he attested that he had not been found guilty of any of the criminal violations listed thereon, including kidnapping under Section 784.01, Florida Statutes. This affidavit is generally prepared by the trainee, under the supervision of the trainer, Ms. Davis, in conjunction with a training session. In this case, because Mr. Mallan had indicated he would not be available to attend training sessions on Thursdays, (one half the course), Ms. Williams cannot be sure whether he receive the standard verbal instructions given to applicants that they shyould not try to hide anything in their backgrounds. However, both Ms. Williams and Ms. Davis gave all the trainees their home phone numbers and offered to help in the prepartion of the documents after hours. Neither lady was contacted by Respondent with questions about any of the documents. Petitioner signed the affidavit at the spot provided therefore on the back of the form where someone had placed an "X". The form is self-explanatory and easy to read. Alicia Miller, the licensing worker at the Family Enrichment Center,who helped Ms. Mallan obtain her foster care license, and who was also helping Petitioner to obtain his, claims she explained the contents of the affidavit to him during the one and a hours she spent at his place of employment going over the forms with him, and he did not request an explanation of the affidavit form. Others who took the FEC's foster parent training, including Steven Link and Noel Perez, filled out the same affidavit and neither had any trouble comprehending the language on the form. Mr. Link indicates they were given many forms to fill out, some of which were read by the teacher. Others were self-explanatory. Not all the forms were given out on the same night. The results of the second background investigation revealed Petitioner had a conviction for kidnapping. This information was discovered by James Thomas, the background screening unit coordinator for the Department, who in turn informed Alicia Miller of the fact and that that conviction disqualified Petitioner from obtaining clearance as a caretaker for children. Ms. Miller passed this information on to Mr. Mallan who requested an exemption. All foster parents must be screened for violations of the law, some of which may disqualify a person from serving as a caretaker of children or from obtaining a foster caer license. When a person is disqualified because of a particular violation, that individual must seek an exemption from the agency before he or she can be licensed. A hearing was held on this request on May 10, 1996, In addition to his oral presentation, Mr. Mallan also provided the agency with numerous reference letters from people in the community who have known his through his church involvement. The informal exepmtion hearing of May 10, 1996 was attended by Mr. Thomas, Don McNair, the operations management consultant who specializes in the licensing of shelter and foster homes, Mr. and Mrs. Mallan, Alicia Miller, Randy White and Mark katherin Moers. As a result of this hearing, on May 20, 1996 the agency advised Mr. Mallan by letter that his request for exemption had been denied. The reason given for the denial was that Mr. Mallan did not show adequate remorse for his actions in kidnapping the child taken nor was he sufficiently forthright in explaining his involvement in the crime. Before recommending denial of Petitioner's request for exemption, Mr. Thomas reviewed the court records relating to the kidn apping charge and concluded that Mr. Mallan's version of the crime at the exemption hearing was not consistent with what was shown in the records. Mr. Mallan's story tended to indicate his involvement in the actual kidnapping was minimal, but an investigator from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, who participated in the investigation of the crime, indicated that was not so. After the committee which heard Petitioner's request for examption met and recommended denial of the exemption, Mr. Mallan requested a second exemption hearing at which he could present his reasons for granting the exemption. Though such a hearing is not normally granted, at the direction of the District Administrator, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Mallan was granted a second exemption hearing at which he could discuss the progress he has made since his imprisonment. At this second hearing, held on May 31, 1996, Petitioner was heard by Harriet Scott, a district program manager; Mr. Thomas; and Mr. McBride, an agency licensing supervisor. The District Administrator, Mr. Taylor, also sat in for a part of the hearing but did not ask any questions of Mr. Mallan. During this second hearing, Petitioner claimed he was "railroaded" at his criminal trial by the prosecution and his two co-defendants, Ms. Lilly and Ms. Parmenter. When asked why he had a gun in his possession at the time of the kidnapping, Mr. Mallan explained he was going to use the gun to committ suicide and denied he used it during the commission of the kidnapping. However, when he was arrested by a Leon County Deputy Sheriff in a Tallahassee motel, he made several inconsistent statements regarding the location of the weapon. At the time of his arrest, he was dressed in a tuxedo and waiting for his girlfriend, now his wife, to pick him up to atten a formal sorority function. The decision to deny Petitioner's request for edxemption from disqualification was a difficult one for the committee to make. The evidence indicates that the two S. boys have been doing well in the care of Mr. and Mrs. mallan and want to return to their home. However, the initial decision to deny the request was made by Mr. Taylor, the District Administrator. Both members of the first committee appointed to review the case recommended denial of the request, and Mr. Taylor agreed only after reading all materials furnished to him by the committee. Several days after the denial letter was sent out, Mrs. Mallan called Mr. Taylor and before he could respond, Mr. Mallan also called to express his concern over the denial, indicating he did not feel he had been given a chance to present his full story. Based on this, and on the fact that Mr. Taylor had some additional questions to ask of the Petitioner, the second hearing was granted. Mr. Taylor classifies this case as one of the 4 or 5 most difficult decisions and the most difficult exemption decision he has had to make during his tenure as District Administrator. His concerns, which ultimately culminated in his decision to deny exemption, were: He did not feel Petitioner was entirely truthful at his first hearing and was evasive and misleading in the information given to the FEC. Petitioner did not express any remorse for his actions. During the period Mr. Taylor sat in during the second exemption hearing, Petitioner appeared almost arrogant and defiant in his approach to the committee. Taylor did not feel Petitioner accepted responmsibility for his actions. Throughout the hearing, Petitioner denied, minimalized and trivialized what he had done and consistently tried to place the blame on others. Many of the concerns expressed by Mr. Taylor were also felt by other committe members such as Ms. Scott. She, too, had the feeling that Petitioner was dissembling and not telling the whole truth. She concluded that the five years which had passed since the conviction was not enough time for Petitioner to be rehabilitated. Once the second hearing was over, Mr. Taylor had no doubts as to those factors cited in the paragraph next above, but he had great concern for the two children involved. He had to weigh these concerns. Before making his final decision, Mr. Taylor read and accepted as sincere all the letters sent in by Petitioner's friends and supporters. Mr. Taylor has no doubt that Petitioner is recognized as having done considerable good in the community, but all this has a hollow core, and without sincere remorse, the rest does not ring true for him. To Mr. Taylor the issue was not whether the two children in issue had a good home or whether Petitioner has done good, but whether Petitioner has been sufficiently rehabilitated, and based on what he has observed, Mr. Taylor concluded Petitioner has not. None of the staff of the Family Enrichment Center, including Olga Williams, the Director, Delores Davis, a training coordinator and teacher of the the Model Approach to parenting and Pertnership (MAPP) classes, or Alicia Miller, all of whom knew the Mallans through contact at the FEC, were ever informed prior to the marriage that Jennifer was going to marry Petitioner, nor were they informed by either that Petitioner had been convicted of kidnapping. Mr. Mallan is currently employed by the South Tampa Christian Center, (STCC), where he and his wife are members. He has been involved in community volunteer work since his release from prison. He is an active participant in a church program called "Conquering Force" in which he speaks to inner city children to convince them that the decisions they make today will affect their future. Though in these talks he has admitted to a prior conviction and incarceration, he has never discussed in detail with any audience the nature of his offense and the circumstances surrounding it. In addition to his work at STCC, Mr. Mallan has volunteered and worked at other community organizations which serve children's needs. It appears from Mrs. Mallan's recounting of the relationship amongst herself, Petitioner and the two S. boys has been quite good. When she and Petitioner decided to marry, and she realized both she and he would have to be liecensed as foster parents, she claims she advised the Department of Petitioner's conviction and also advised her MAPP teacher, asking if it would be worthwhile to continue with the trainin in light thereof. She claims to also have told Ms. Miller who, she relates, also told her the conviction would not be a problem so long as Petitioner has been clean since his release from prison. Once they were married, she contends, they both advised the relevant agency authorities of his conviction. Ms. Mallan contends that Petitioner should receive an exemption b ecause since he got out of prison he has lived rehabilitation for himself and others. He works with children to help and assist in decision making. He has never shown anything contrary to rehabilitation ahd wants to have a positive influence on youth. To her knowledge, parents of the children with whom he comes into contact are grateful for the time and efforts he has expended in Florida, nationally and internationally. Mr. Mallan became a Christian two weeks after he went to prison. He immediately worked in the chapel and has never backslid, but has been consistent and committed since he gave his life to the Lord. Mrs. Mallan disagrees with the Department's conclusion that Petitioner is not remorseful over what he did. She has heard him publicly speak about it and he has contacted the victim's father to see that the boy is all right. Petitioner's good wirk is noted by Henry Blanton who served on a committe for a crime forum for the Boy Scouts which was made up of judges, police officials and others related to law enforcement and at which Petitioner was involved. Mr. Blanton had known Petitioner for several years and saw what he was doing for youth, and asked him to get involved. Mr. Blanton's son has been involved with the petitioner through church activities and feels he knows Petitioner quite well. Mr. Blanton is aware of Petitioner's record from Petitioner's public recounting of it as a part of his ministry, and is shocked by the Department's position that Petitioner has not been rehabilitated. Blanton is unequivocally convinced that Petitioner has been rehabilitated and has done much for young people in the community. In Blanton's words, Petitioner "should be commended for what he has done - not castigated and raked over the coals." Tough he his aware of Petitioner's conviction for kidnapping, Mr. Blanton is not aware of the details. As he recalls, Petitioner has referred to the kidnapping as a "prank." Mr. Blanton knows nothing bad about the Petitioner other than his conviction and is not aware of any drug or grand theft charges. He also was not aware that Petitioner was not honest on his affidavit of good moral character, and feels that lying is not evidence of good moral character. Several other responsible individuals were convinced of Petitioner's worth, having heard of his incarceration through their relationship with him. None was advised of the reason for his imprisonment, however. Nevertheless, all, including a marital counselor and a school community specialist, believe Petitioner is committed to a Christian lifestyle and to God. Mrs. Mallam's uncle, a Hillsborough County Circuit Judge, has known Petitioner for about five years, before the trial and incarceration. He cannot say whether Petitioner has changed because he did not know Petitioner well before his imprisonment. In the Judge's opinion, it is hard to measure rehabilitation, but he seems to have seen a change in the Petitioner's life style which makes him moere committed to the improvement of youth. Petitioner never denied his crime to this Judge nor did he try to minimize them, but he also never brought the subject up and the Judge never questioned Petitioner about it. All of the responsible individuals such as teachers and school administrtors who have been in contact with the two S. boys attest that they have done well living with the Petitioner and his wife. Pastor Randy White of STCC first met the Petitioner right after Mr. Mallan was released from prison. At that time, Petitioner was dating Ms. Mallan and wanted to attend his church. For over a year therafter, Petitioner did community service for the church as a part of his probation. He told the pastor he had b een convicted of kidnapping and grand theft and appeared to be remourseful, neither denying nor minimalizing his offenses. After he completed his period of community service, Petitioner came on staff at the church as outreach director. He performed well and was offeded the position of youth pastor in which capacity he is still employed. In the words of Pastor White, Petitioner has done a "tremendous" job. Churches from all over the country have contacted him seeking to hire him. Both pastor White and the church sponsored Petitioner in a one year "Master pastor" intern program which gave him thirty college credits. Petitioner successfully completed the program. Pastor White has no reservations about Petitioner's rehabilitation or that he is a productive member of society. Petitioner has now beenb ordained as a minister and has all the qualities of a minister. In Pastor White's opinion, Petitioner has a stable marriage to a woman who is involved in his ministry and woulod not turn to crime. Recognizing that truth is a part of rehabilitation, Pastor White believed also that an intentional misrepresentation is evidence of bad character. He is aware of Petitioner's reference to his misdeed as a "prank", but also contends that Petitioner told him he had told the Department's representatives of his criminal record. Pastor White has no reason to doubt Petitioner on any level. In that regard, Petitioner counselled with Paul Hollis, the Director of Counseling for STCC in the Fall of 1992. Petitioner wanted to make sure thee was nothing in his background to cause a problem for the church. In the course of the counselling, petitioner gave a full account of his criminal conviction and the details involved. He was very open and did not try to conceal anything. As a rsult of their sessions, Mr. Hollis felt that Petitioner was remorseful and anxious to insure that what happened in his past would never happen again. At that time, Mr. Hollis felt Petitioner was already rehabilitated and nothing has occurred since to cause him to have a question as to Petitioner's rehabilitation. In fact, Petitioner is now helping to rehabilitate others. Arlene Freed-Vest, Petitioner's probation officer for the fourteen months he was on probation after his release from approximately nine months in prison, supervised him closely during the period of community service he performed upon his release. Petitioner had initially been placed on three and a half years of probation, but she recommended early termination of probation based on her satisfaction he was rehabilitated. This determination was based on a review of his entire file from confinement on and she was satisfied he had received all the benefits he could from prob ation and would not benefit from it further. She concluded that Petitioner took responsibility for his actions and has shown continuing remorse. The fact that he has tried to get on with his life does not mean he is not owning up to his offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting Robert Mallan an exemption from disqualification from residing in a licensed foster home. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth M. Hapner, Esquire 101 South Franklin Street, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Josefina M. Tomayo, Esquire Jennifer S. Lima, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 6 Legal Office 4000 West Dr. M. L. King, Jr. Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 Gergory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood boulevard Building 2, Room 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-07600 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Audrey Jones (Respondent) was granted a foster care license by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Petitioner) in August 1994. Respondent sought to renew her foster care license. By letter dated June 14, 1995, Petitioner notified Respondent that her foster care license would not be renewed because of a proposed confirmed abuse report. On July 6, 1994, Respondent signed an agreement, entitled "Discipline Policy Agreement", agreeing to comply with Petitioner's discipline policy. The Discipline Policy Agreement provides in pertinent part: The following disciplinary practices are FORBIDDEN in the caring for your foster child. Failure to comply may result in an investiga- tion and possible closure of your home. * * * Hitting a child with an object. Slapping or spanking a child, or ANY OTHER physical discipline. On August 23, 1994, as a condition of licensure, Respondent signed an agreement, entitled "Agreement To Provide Substitute Care For Dependent Children", with Petitioner. This agreement provides in pertinent part: As substitute care parent(s) for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, we agree to the following conditions considered essential for the welfare of this dependent child placed in our home: * * * 2. We are fully and directly responsible to the department for the care of the child. * * * We will comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the department. We will immediately report any injuries or illness of a child in our care to the department. * * * 19. We will abide by the department's discipline policy which we received during the MAPP training. In May, 1995, Respondent was the foster parent of B. W., a female child. At that time, B. W. was nine years old and had been in Respondent's care for less than one year. On May 22, 1995, B. W. was examined by a physician of Petitioner's Child Protective Team as a result of an abuse report made against Respondent that same day. The examination revealed multiple linear abrasions, scabbed linear lesions, and bruises on B. W.'s upper thighs and buttocks, with the injured areas being tender. The injuries had been inflicted with a brush-type instrument and had been inflicted within three days prior to the examination. The lesions and bruises could not have been, and were not, self- inflicted. Respondent inflicted the lesions and bruises upon B. W. with a brush. B. W. has been in several foster homes over the years. She admitted that she has told several truths and "stories" about former foster homes. However, in this situation, B. W. is found to have spoken the truth. On May 22, 1995, B. W. informed Petitioner's abuse investigator, the examining physician, and a supervisor at the Mental Health program that she attended that Respondent had punished her with a brush and that the lesions and bruises were a result of that punishment. All of these individuals observed the injuries on May 22, 1995. During the three-day period prior to the report and discovery of the lesions and bruises, B. W. was in the custody and control of Respondent. At no time did Respondent seek medical treatment for B. W.'s injuries. Nor did Respondent notify Petitioner of the injuries. Respondent violated both the Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for Dependent Children and the Discipline Policy Agreement that she had with Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services deny the renewal of Audrey Jones' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 9. NOTE - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northeast Second Avenue Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Harry G. Robbins, Esquire Presidential Circle Building 4000 Hollywood boulevard Suite 630 North Hollywood, Florida 33130 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sandy Coulter Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position as a “caregiver?”
Findings Of Fact The Sunland Center in Marianna, Florida is a residential facility operated by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), serving developmentally disabled adults. The Petitioner, Larry Wyatt, worked at Sunland Center as a Vocational Instructor II, supervising and training a group of developmentally disabled clients. After he got involved in the events which lead to his disqualification from such a position of special trust he was demoted, but is still employed at Sunland Center in a position where he does not have client contact. The Respondent is an Agency of the state of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with screening the criminal and adult abuse records of persons employed in positions of special trust, such as the supervision of a group of developmentally disabled clients. Upon learning of an altercation involving the arrest of the Petitioner for assault (domestic violence) the department disqualified him from employment in a position of special trust working with children or developmentally disabled clients under relevant law. On the evening of August 18, 1995, the Petitioner became embroiled in an argument with his wife. The Petitioner had in his possession a six-pack of beer and had consumed two cans of beer, leaving four unopened. At some point during the course of the argument Mrs. Wyatt attempted to leave their home and go to her mother’s home in her car. Mr. Wyatt remonstrated with her to try to get her not to leave and when she refused to stay he got into his vehicle and bumped her car slightly with his vehicle. He did not actually ram her car with any great degree of force, but merely slightly bumped her car at a very slow speed, with not enough force to cause any damage or injury. Both protagonists were angry and shouting at each other. No blows or physical touching occurred. In an angry state of mind, Mrs. Wyatt telephoned the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department who dispatched Deputy David Edmundson to the scene. On arriving at the scene, Deputy Edmundson spoke to Mrs. Wyatt, who asked him to stay with her until she left the premises or else to require Mr. Wyatt to leave. She specifically asked that he not be arrested. Mr. Wyatt began again yelling at Ms. Wyatt whereupon the Deputy told him to desist. He started yelling and arguing with the Deputy and the Deputy determined that it was best to place him under arrest and remove him from the scene. He placed him under arrest for “domestic violence” and “resisting arrest without violence.” He took the Petitioner to the Jackson County Jail. Several hours later Deputy Edmundson visited Mr. Wyatt in the holding cell at the jail. Mr. Wyatt then apologized to the Deputy for his conduct at the scene of the incident and the Deputy explained to Mr. Wyatt that, at that point, he was under an injunction and prohibited from returning to his home, unless the injunction was removed by the court. Mr. Wyatt then inquired if he could retrieve his belongings from his home and the Deputy explained he could make one trip home for that purpose but would need to be accompanied by a law enforcement officer and that he would need to make arrangements with the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department in order to do so. The following day, on August 19, 1995, Mr. Wyatt went to his home in the company of his father, without the assistance or accompaniment of a law enforcement officer and without making arrangements with the sheriff’s department for the trip. He committed no improper behavior when he arrived at home, retrieved his belongings and left. Upon the discovery by the authorities that he had made the trip without proper authorization the Petitioner was again placed under arrest. On August 21, 1995, he pled guilty to “domestic violence” (presumably assault), “resisting arrest without violence” and “violating an injunction.” As a result of that guilty plea he was disqualified from his employment as a Vocational Instructor II at Sunland Center. The court did not adjudicate him guilty. Rather adjudication was withheld and he was placed on probation with conditions. A condition of his probation was that he attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and that he and his wife attend marriage counseling sessions. Mr. and Ms. Wyatt attended the marriage counseling sessions for twenty-seven weeks. They both testified that the therapy was very helpful to them. They learned how to control their anger and how to resolve disputes without destructive argument. Mr. Wyatt attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as well and found them helpful. His unrefuted testimony indicates that as to the Alcoholics Anonymous therapy and the marriage counseling sessions that both efforts were helpful in helping him to understand the role his failure to control anger and use of alcohol combined to harm the stability of his marriage and his relations with his wife. In summary, both Mr. and Mrs. Wyatt testified in a believable way, without refutation, that their marriage had greatly improved as a result of the catharsis engendered by Mr. Wyatt’s arrest under the above-found circumstances and the resultant marriage counseling therapy and his attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous counseling sessions. They have observed that they do not argue as they once did, that their children seem to respect them more, and they get along better among themselves as well. Their family life is strengthened and more stable as a result of their experience. Leon Hussey, the Petitioner’s immediate supervisor at Sunland Center, Mr. Fears, his father-in-law and co-worker, and Tracy Clemmons, the Superintendent of Sunland, all testified to the effect that the Petitioner had been an exemplary employee with a flawless record for sixteen years. He was classified as an above average employee by his supervisor and the superintendent. They noted that he was particularly skilled at handling difficult clients at Sunland in his work as a vocational therapist and that clients felt respect and great affection for him. They have even asked on occasion when he would “be back” to occupy his old position in working with them. Tracy Clemmons and Leon Hussey both testified that the Petitioner was an excellent employee and his return they regarded as essential in order to adequately deal with difficult clients and that it would be “a shame” if he were not permitted to return to the duties he performed so well in dealing with the developmentally disabled clients in question. In summary, although the incident occurring between Mr. Wyatt and his wife may be classified as assault (“domestic violence”), he testified, as did she, without refutation, that he never struck her and that the car bumping incident in their yard was the result of his insufficiently controlled anger at her but, fortunately, was not of a nature to cause any injury to his wife or the other vehicle, and was not so intended. Under the totality of the circumstances, considering especially the efforts Mr. Wyatt has made, with his wife’s cooperation, to rehabilitate himself and to learn to control his anger and other impulsive behavior and the lack of any similar altercations since the one in question, it is found that the Petitioner has adequately rehabilitated himself in order to justify the grant of an exemption. This finding is corroborated and supported by the testimony of the witnesses from his employment life who uniformly described his exemplary record as a skilled, caring, compassionate trainer of the developmentally disabled persons in his charge. They desire his return to his former position immediately, even with knowledge of the circumstances of his recent disqualification. The testimony adduced by the department did not establish a lack of rehabilitation on the part of Mr. Wyatt. The testimony adduced by the Department at most can be characterized as a conclusory statement of position that, given the circumstances of the incident between Mr. Wyatt and his wife, a similar incident between them some two years previously, and another incident involving a driving violation concerning an expired tag, drivers license and “leaving the scene of an accident,” to which a guilty plea was entered, that Mr. Wyatt has not shown adequate rehabilitation. That testimony is rejected as not being as substantial as that in support of the above findings of fact establishing the Petitioner’s adequate rehabilitation. No adverse incidents have occurred since the one causing this proceeding. The testimony of the Petitioner’s wife and the other witnesses is accepted over that of the Department’s witness, Ms. Hanson. They had more opportunity to observe the Petitioner’s personality and behavior since the incident in question and more of an opportunity to learn of his reputation in the community for behavior since the incident, which is consistent with his rehabilitation, which their testimony establishes, when considered in its totality with the other circumstances proved in this case.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding Larry Wyatt, the Petitioner herein, the requested exemption.DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thayer Marts, Esquire Post Office Box 761 Marianna, Florida 32447 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, Esquire Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should revoke or suspend the foster care license of Larry and Kathleen Abbott.
Findings Of Fact Larry and Kathleen Abbott have been licensed foster parents for a number of years. They were licensed in 1983 in HRS District 6 (Hillsborough County and Manatee County) and in 1986 in HRS District 5 (Pinellas County). Despite some criticism by HRS staff, their license was renewed annually since 1986. Their last license expired and was required to be renewed on October 25, 1991, after the commencement of this proceeding. By their Agreement to Provide Foster Care for Dependent Children, the Abbotts agreed to "hold confidential all information about the child and his family" and to "discuss such information only with representatives of the Department or with appropriate specialists at the request of the Department." On or about January 28, 1990, HRS initiated proceedings to place a female baby named Andrea, who was born on June 28, 1989, in shelter care due to her failure to thrive and her mother's lack of parenting skills. On or about February 23, 1990, the child was placed in foster care in accordance with a Performance Agreement. The goal under the Performance Agreement was to return the child to the care of her mother by August 31, 1990. (This goal was later extended to February 23, 1991.) However, meanwhile, due to the mother's lack of parenting skills and multiple allegations of abuse, the foster parents agreed not only to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, supervision and affection, but also to report to HRS any concerns regarding visitation with the mother. Since the Abbotts were not Andrea's initial foster parents, they did not sign the Performance Agreement. However, although they never signed the agreement, when they became Andrea's foster parents on or about April 30, 1990, they also agreed to the terms of the Performance Agreement. When the Abbotts got Andrea, she had a medical problem called "G.U. Reflux." HRS wanted the Abbotts to have this condition appropriately followed by a physician and wanted it documented by a physician that the problem had cleared. An appointment scheduled for this purpose had to be cancelled for some reason and, while discussing rescheduling the appointment with the physician's medical staff, Mrs. Abbott reported her observation that the problem already had cleared. Based on the report from Mrs. Abbott, the appointment was not rescheduled, and the physician closed the case based on Mrs. Abbott's report. HRS apparently feels that the Abbotts were less than impartial in their evaluation of Andrea's medical condition. HRS witnesses asserted that the Abbotts decided early on that the child's symptoms that resulted in the G.U. Reflux diagnosis actually were caused by the natural mother's physical abuse and neglect of the child. The HRS witnesses contended that the Abbotts' beliefs warped their judgment and impelled them, inappropriately, to cancel the doctor appointment based on their beliefs, and in order to prove their beliefs to be correct. But the evidence in this case did not prove HRS' contentions. From the outset of the Abbotts' foster care for Andrea, the Abbotts were very interested in knowing all of the background about Andrea, including the allegations against her natural mother. The natural mother was allowed to keep her two other children. The Abbotts were interested to know how the mother was caring for the other two children, in part as it might be relevant to the ultimate disposition of Andrea's case but also in part for the sake of the other children as well. Mrs. Abbott seemed to question whether the HRS investigations on the other children, which were closed as "unfounded," were properly conducted. But there is no evidence that the Abbotts did or said anything in these earlier time periods in their foster care for Andrea that HRS viewed to be improper. At some point relatively early in the Abbotts' foster care of Andrea, Mrs. Abbott pointed out to her HRS foster care counselor that Andrea's name was similar to that of another child living in the home, and Mrs. Abbott wanted to know if it would be permissible to call Andrea by a nickname. The HRS counselor said that would be fine. Later, near the holidays in late 1990, Andrea's natural mother expressed concern to the HRS counselor that the Abbotts had been calling Andrea by the name Nicole and that she was not responding to Andrea any more. The HRS counselor spoke to the Abbotts and asked them to stop calling the child Nicole. She explained that, when she authorized the Abbotts to call Andrea by a nickname, she did not mean they could call her by a different proper name. The Abbotts, who now see the error of judgment that they made, immediately stopped calling the child Nicole. As the goal of reunification by February 23, 1991, approached, Mrs. Abbott began to question the propriety of going ahead according to schedule. HRS protective services had raised questions regarding the natural mother's readiness to take care of Andrea. The HRS counselor also had made statements to Mrs. Abbott which made her suspicious that the counselor's supervisor would not make the decision to reunify the family on the basis of the best interests of the child. (It was intimated that the supervisor might be more concerned with her unit's statistics.) At bottom, the Abbotts thought reunification should be postponed; HRS, especially through the counselor's supervisor, took the position that reunification should go forward as scheduled. The Abbotts also disapproved of the natural mother's male friend, who was cohabiting with her in her apartment. The HRS counselor told Mrs. Abbott that it was not permitted for the natural mother to have a male friend living with her in her apartment while she was receiving certain welfare benefits. She told Mrs. Abbott that the natural mother would be in trouble if the landlord knew. HRS asserted that Mrs. Abbott took it upon herself to tell the landlord, but there was no evidence upon which such a finding could be made.2/ One day, on or about January 11, 1991, the natural mother did not make a scheduled appointment for purposes of visitation with Andrea. Mrs. Abbott understood that the natural mother sometimes worked at the day care facility located at the apartment complex where the natural mother lived. This was the day care facility utilized by the natural mother for her other children. It was also proposed for Andrea after reunification. Mrs. Abbott identified herself to the day care director in terms of Andrea, the natural mother and the children at the day care. The natural mother was not there. No finding can be made as to the subject matter of the remainder of the conversation.3/ The day care director reported some of the conversation with Mrs. Abbott to the HRS protective services staff responsible for the children, who brought the matter of Mrs. Abbott's alleged "meddling" and "breach of confidentiality" to the attention of the HRS counselor and her supervisor. They reprimanded Mrs. Abbott, who became even more suspicious of HRS and its protective services staff. On or about April 5, 1991, Andrea was returned to the Abbotts after a scheduled weekend visitation with the natural mother.4/ Mrs. Abbott observed marked and unusual redness and swelling in the child's genital area and became concerned that the natural mother's male friend might be sexually abusing the child. Although she thought it was diaper rash, the HRS foster care counselor authorized Mrs. Abbott to have the child examined by a physician at the Bayfront Medical Center. The doctor's nurse agreed with Mrs. Abbott that the redness was too concentrated to be diaper rash, reinforcing Mrs. Abbott's beliefs. The doctor prescribed Desitin and sitzbaths, and had Mrs. Abbott call back for test results. The eventual diagnosis was that the child had a bacterial staph infection.5/ Despite the diagnosis, Mrs. Abbott continued to maintain strong feelings that the child was being physically abused. These suspicions were instigated in part by comments from the doctor that the symptoms could come from being touched by dirty hands, from Mrs. Abbott's understanding that the natural mother's male friend worked as manager of an auto service station, and from her having seen him with dirty hands as a result of his work.6/ Mrs. Abbott had several discussions with the HRS foster care counselor about her suspicions. The HRS counselor was unable to convince Mrs. Abbott to drop her suspicions in light of the absence of solid evidence of sexual abuse. Mrs. Abbott felt there were indications that Andrea was "severely traumatized" by visits with her natural mother. But HRS personnel perceived no evidence of this. At this point, HRS and the Abbotts essentially disagreed as to how Andrea's case should proceed. HRS thought that there was no basis on which to change the goal of reunification. Mrs. Abbott felt that reunification should be postponed and also suggested that it was HRS' responsibility to secure a guardian ad litem. HRS decided that a meeting should be held among all concerned to resolve the disagreement. The meeting was held on or about April 9, 1991.7/ From opening remarks made by the counselor's supervisor, Mrs. Abbott felt that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the issues to reach a solution but to present a united HRS front to press forward for reunification. Mrs. Abbott felt that, in that atmosphere, there was no point in her speaking against reunification, but she continued to maintain her negative feelings about it and resolved in her mind to continue to oppose reunification on other fronts. She asked the HRS counselor if it was permissible to contact the chairperson of the reunification committee directly and was told that there was nothing to prevent her from doing so. On or about April 11, 1991, the HRS counselor authorized Mrs. Abbott to have the child seen by a child protective team (CPT) physician. The CPT physician affirmed the previous diagnosis and prescribed an antibiotic. The Abbotts did not immediately fill the prescription. They told the HRS counselor that they did not have Medicaid authorization to have the prescription filled through Medicaid. The counselor thought the authorizations had been sent to the Abbots but promised to send or deliver to them another one. On one occasion, when the counselor was at the Abbott house, the counselor went to her car to get the necessary form, but discovered she did not have any with her. On another occasion, the counselor was to give Mrs. Abbott the authorization form at a meeting they were at, but they both forgot to take care of that item of business. Meanwhile, the Abbotts continued to use Desitin.8/ On or about April 19, 1991, after the redness and swelling seemed to the Abbotts to be going away, the natural mother had Andrea for another overnight visit. Still suspicious, Mrs. Abbott had asked the HRS counselor to check the child's genital area as soon as possible after the visit. When the Abbotts got the child back from the HRS counselor, Mrs. Abbott checked the child herself and was surprised and upset to see more redness and swelling. She immediately telephoned HRS and spoke with the counselor's supervisor. She was instructed to bring the child to the child protection center immediately. When the CPT physician learned that the Abbotts had not yet started the prescription from over a week earlier, she became upset and threatened to telephone the Florida abuse registry to report the Abbotts for medical neglect for failure to obtain and administer the prescription. The HRS supervisor intervened and dissuaded the physician from making the call by assuring her that the prescription would be obtained and administered immediately. The CPT physician's diagnosis was that, although sexual abuse could not be ruled out, the problem was more likely secondary to less than adequate diaper changing and persistence of the previous staph vaginitis. Mrs. Abbott did not accept the diagnosis but continued to suspect sexual abuse. She opposed further visitation with the natural mother so long as the male friend resided in the same apartment. Eventually, a reunification meeting was held. The Abbotts did not attend. It was decided to reunify the family. The Abbotts cooperated in making all necessary final arrangements to get Andrea ready. Reunification went forward on or about May 20, 1991. After reunification, Mrs. Abbott continued to show interest in Andrea. After taking a two-week vacation, Mrs. Abbott got permission from the HRS counselor to telephone once a week to see how Andrea was doing. Mrs. Abbott also asked to know the name and address of Andrea's private day care, but the counselor said she could not have that information. After five weeks, the counselor's supervisor had the counselor cut off any further contact with the Abbotts concerning Andrea. Mrs. Abbott said to let her know if HRS had to take Andrea back. She said that she and her husband had much invested in caring for Andrea and that they felt as if she were their own child. If HRS had to take Andrea back, the Abbotts wanted her back and would be interested in adoption. Later, the Abbotts asked for another assignment essentially to help take their minds off of Andrea. On two occasions, Mrs. Abbott criticized the care being provided by other foster parents and suggested that the foster children be transferred to the Abbotts. HRS viewed this as evidence that the Abbotts had become so attached to Andrea that they had lost their good judgment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), enter a final order suspending the foster care license of Larry and Kathleen Abbott for 90 days. 9/ RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care center should be granted.
Findings Of Fact DCF is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, the approval and monitoring of family day care homes. Petitioner Karen G. Flanders ("Flanders") has been working in the child care field for several years. On or about April 21, 2006, Flanders submitted a Family Day Care Home Registration form, which is an application seeking approval to operate a small day care home. As part of the application process, Flanders agreed to allow DCF to conduct a Central Abuse Hotline Record search to determine the existence of any complaints or actions against her. The consent form Flanders signed allowing the search included a provision that the department would see any investigation resulting in "verified indicators." During its processing of the application, DCF determined the existence of an investigative report concerning Flanders. The incident in the report allegedly occurred on September 1, 2005. Flanders was alleged to have grabbed, slapped, and punched a child, C.S., while working as a day care worker for Kids Together day care facility. Flanders was immediately terminated from employment by her employer. The Central Abuse Hotline was contacted immediately. By her own admission, Flanders was the caller. Pursuant to its duty, DCF conducted an investigation the day after the alleged incident. The investigation found there were "some indicators" of excessive corporal punishment. The term "some indicators" advises DCF that some adverse incident has happened, but it could have been a one-time issue that may never happen again. In this case, the primary concern of DCF was that the alleged incident occurred in a child care facility. Flanders had an excessive history of prior reported incidents, which was taken into consideration by the investigators. Based on those findings, the safety of the child victim became a concern. DCF found, however, that Flanders' termination from employment was sufficient to alleviate further concern for the child. Flanders has been involved in child care for many years and considers it her occupation. Her pending application to operate a small child care facility is consistent with her work history. However, she has had an adverse incident resulting in some indicators of abusive behavior.
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 Family Services denying the application by Karen Flanders to operate a day care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Flanders 14924 Lady Victoria Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32826 Stacy N. Robinson Pierce, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1114 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Copelan, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Luci D. Hadi, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
