The Issue Whether Respondents should be granted a family foster home license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Alfonso and Lynda Zapata, applied to be licensed as a family foster home care with the Department through the Devereux Foundation. The Devereux Foundation maintains a network of foster homes to serve parents who need to temporarily place their children in foster care (private placements) and dependent children in the custody of the Department (public placements). Previously, Petitioners had been licensed as a family foster care home with the Department through Florida Baptist Children's Home (Florida Baptist). Like the Devereux Foundation, Florida Baptist maintains a network of foster homes to serve parents who need to temporarily place their children in foster care and dependent children in the custody of the Department. Petitioners had withdrawn form the relationship with Florida Baptist after a disagreement with Florida Baptist personnel over the removal of a child from their home and reunification of that child with her mother. In 2001, about half of the children placed in Florida Baptist's homes were placed by the Department in connection with cases of child abuse, or abandonment, while the other half were private placements by families whose circumstances necessitated that their children temporarily reside elsewhere. In July 2001, Petitioners had two foster children living in their home. One of these children, T.D., also known as J., had been placed in the Petitioner's home by the Department. The other, C.R., a three-month-old boy, had been privately placed in the home by Florida Baptist at the request of the child's mother, E.R., who was single. E.R. had placed her child in Florida Baptist care because she had enlisted in the United States Army and was undergoing basic training out of state. E.R. had enlisted in order to provide her family a better life. It was initially anticipated that E.R. would be gone six months, but due to injuries sustained during basic training, she was actually gone for eight or nine months. There was no evidence of abuse, neglect or abandonment on E.R.'s part. During C.R.'s stay, Petitioners developed a negative impression of E.R. They did not think that E.R. called or wrote frequently enough. Petitioners had commented to Florida Baptist staff that E.R. was an unfit mother, that Petitioners provided C.R. with a better home than E.R. could, that E.R. did not love C.R., and that Petitioners could love C.R. more than E.R. could. Petitioners' opinion was based on their belief that no really good mother would take a job which required her to be away from her child for extended periods and a belief that C.R.'s grandmother was physically abusive towards C.R. Unfortunately, Petitioners let their beliefs about appropriate parenting interfere in their duties as foster parents to aid in reunification of a child with that child's legal parents. Florida Baptist staff also believed that Petitioners had become too attached to C.R., which caused them to attempt to undermine the Department's later attempts to reunify mother and child at the planned time E.R. would return from basic training and be able to provide a home to C.R. In late July 2001, Florida Baptist staff also became concerned about other behavior exhibited by Petitioners involving confidentiality issues and concerned that the Department had removed T.D. (aka "J.") from Petitioners' home. The behavior concerning confidentiality arose because Mrs. Zapata had discussed the fitness of E.R. to be C.R.'s custodial parent with a Department employee. C.R. was not a Department placement. However, it should be noted that the discussion was with a Department employee involved in the fostering program. Such an employee could reasonably be viewed as a person to report any suspected abuse or neglect to. In this instance, the conversation did not involve a report of abuse or neglect, but concerned Petitioners' belief that E.R. was not a good mother. On the other hand, the evidence was unclear whether the same confidentiality requirements regarding public placements by the Department appertain to private placements by the parents. The incident does cast doubt on Petitioners' awareness and desire to comply with privacy considerations should they be licensed by the Department. During the month of July 2001, T.D., also known as "J.", lived in Petitioner's home. T.D. was a little less than a year old at the time and had been placed in Petitioner's home by the Department because of ongoing juvenile dependency proceedings. On July 31 or August 1, 2001, the Department counselor, Wendy Cheney, picked T.D. up at Petitioner's home to take him to a doctor's appointment. Ms. Cheney noticed that there were crumbs and dirt in the car seat in which Petitioners had placed T.D. Ms. Cheney also noticed that T.D.'s clothes and diaper bag had a strong odor of spoiled milk. A crust also appeared on the nipple of the baby bottle and the eye medicine bottle Mrs. Zapata gave her to take with T.D. to the physician's appointment. During the preceding month, Ms. Cheney had visited Petitioners' home on at least a weekly basis to monitor T.D.'s situation. On many of these occasions, Ms. Cheney also observed that T.D.'s clothes had the same sour milk smell she experienced during the doctor's appointment. She also noticed during these visits that the nipples of T.D.'s baby bottles were not properly covered. On one occasion, Ms. Cheney saw T.D. drop his pacifier and then observed Mrs. Zapata pick it up and replace it in T.D.'s mouth without washing it off. This is of particular concern, as Petitioners had a long-haired dog whose hair was apparent on the floor of Petitioners' home. The Department removed T.D. from Petitioners' home because of these observations. Again, these observations cast serious doubt on the quality of hygienic care provided by Petitioners to foster children. There was no evidence offered to contradict the apparent lack of good hygienic care provided to T.D. However, there was also no evidence that Petitioners' care of T.D. constituted neglect or abuse of T.D., since a finding of neglect or abuse requires demonstration of harm or significantly dangerous conditions. Because of these concerns, Florida Baptist staff agreed that C.R. should be removed from Petitioners' home at least until these issues sorted themselves out. On August 1, 2001, Florida Baptist social worker Sue Kiser telephoned Mr. Zapata and scheduled an appointment for 4:30 p.m., on August 2, 2001, to discuss the reunification of C.R. with E.R. Later that day, Florida Baptist staff decided that since E.R. had recently returned from basic training, the optimum way of accomplishing reunification was to have E.R. meet Ms. Kiser and C.R. at a previously scheduled medical appointment on August 2, 2001, following which C.R. and E.R. would stay together at another foster home. Florida Baptist social worker, Jackie Barksdale, communicated this plan by telephone to Mr. Zapata on August 1, 2001. Mr. Zapata became angry and stated that he refused to allow C.R. to leave his home and go to visit with E.R. He accused Ms. Barksdale of "screwing with" C.R.'s life and committing "child abuse." He promised that "heads would roll" and disparaged E.R.'s family. Ms. Zapata then got on the telephone. She also accused Ms. Barksdale of child abuse and threatened to call the abuse hotline on Florida Baptist. Since no abuse reports were made by Petitioners, these threats were made as a bluff in an attempt to coerce Florida Baptist to leave C.R. with Petitioners. Given this conduct, the staff of Florida Baptist felt they had little choice but to remove C.R. from Petitioner's home. C.R. was removed from Petitioners' home on August 2, 2001. C.R. stayed in the other foster home without incident for about five weeks. C.R. and E.R. were then reunited, and continue to live together as a family. No reports of any problems between C.R. and E.R. have been received since that time. These facts clearly demonstrate Petitioners' unwillingness to cooperate in reunification plans for a child and mother. Petitioners permitted their low opinion regarding C.R.'s mother to interfere with their duty as foster parents. There was no evidence that Petitioners' attitude regarding the parents of foster children would not cause future interference in reunification efforts should their application for licensure be granted. An abused child, V.V., was placed in shelter care with Petitioners. V.V. had sustained a broken arm from abuse she had suffered. She stayed less than three days with Petitioners because her crying kept them up at night and interfered with Mrs. Zapata's home schooling of her biological children. Petitioners acted appropriately in requesting the removal of the child when it became apparent that the placement could not work out and does not demonstrate a lack of qualification for licensure. Finally, a pregnant teenage girl who wished to place her child with Florida Baptist wanted to see the home her child was to live in. Florida Baptist arranged for the girl to look at Petitioners' home. After the visit, Petitioners asked Florida Baptist never to ask them to submit to such an inspection, as they felt they were under some heightened level of scrutiny. Florida Baptist staff explained that parents frequently made this request, and Petitioners repeated that they did not wish to undergo it again. Petitioners request is troubling since one of the duties of the foster parent is to work with the biological parent of a foster child. Again, Petitioners' negative attitudes toward the parents of foster children demonstrate that Petitioners' application for licensure should be denied.
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 denying the application for a foster care license submitted by Petitioners Alfonso and Lynda Zapata. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Room 252-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Alfonso Zapata Lynda Zapata 1947 Treeline Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Paul F. Flounlacker, 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
The Issue Should Respondent's family foster home license be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined based on the facts alleged in the Notice of Denial dated August 27, 1998, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of licensing family foster homes and administering the foster care program as it relates to family foster homes, such as providing foster care supervision and services. On June 16, 1997, Kristie and Robert Huggins (Huggins) of 1403 Chamberlain Loop, Lake Wales, Polk County, Florida, were issued a Certificate of License by the Department to operate a family foster home for children. Subsequently, the Department placed foster care children in the Huggins' home. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department had the children A.M., born December 29, 1996, L.M., born September 30, 1995, and A.C., born October 22, 1996, placed in the Huggins' home. The Notice of Denial dated August 27, 1998, provides in pertinent part as follows: . This letter provides notice that your license as a foster home is revoked based on Section 409.175(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 65C- 13.001, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The reasons for the revocation are as follows: Vickie Barron, of Nurturing Families Project, Evelyn Liamison [sic], Guardian Ad Litem, and Family Service Counselors Patrice Thigpen and Desiree Smith noted as to Mrs. Huggins' "possessiveness" of the children toward the birth parents. The children were known in the Busy Bee Preschool as the "Huggins Children." The children's belongings were marked as "Huggins." These actions violate Rule 65C-13.010(1)(b)(1)(c)(F.A.C.), which states that substitute care parents are expected to help children in their care to maintain a sense of their past and record of their present. Bruises and other injuries noted by Vickie Barron of Nurturing Families Project, Evelyn Liamison [sic], Guardian Ad Litem, and the birth parents. The Busy Bee Preschool also noted bruises and various injuries to the three children on 2/13/98, 2/26/98, 3/2/98. 3/16/98, and 3/23/98. While they resided in the Huggins' home. Since the children have moved from the home, these types of injuries are not occurring. Rule 65C-13.009(e)(10) (F.A.C.), require that foster parents must be able to provide a healthy and safe environment for children and youth and keep them from harm. You have failed to comply with this rule. Desiree Smith, Family Service Counselor, noted that on 3/12/98, when Mrs. Huggins was questioned about a bruise on a male foster child, she told Desiree Smith that the bruise occurred at the daycare. The daycare notes reflected that Mrs. Huggins told the daycare that the bruise was received at the doctor's office. This violates Rule 65C- 13.010(4)(1)(F.A.C.), which states that the substitute care parents must notify the department immediately of illness or accidents involving the child. You did not notify the department when you and Mr. Huggins separated. This violates Rule 65C-13.010(4)(g), which states substitute care parents must notify the department regarding changes which affect the life and circumstances of the foster family. Your violation of the above mentioned Administrative Rules created an unsafe environment for foster children. Section 409.175(8)(b)1, Florida Statutes. At the beginning of the hearing, the Department made an ore tenus motion to amend certain rule citations in the Notice of Denial. The motion was granted and the citations to Rules 65C-13.010(1)(b)(1)(c)(F.A.C.); 65C-13.009(e)(10)(F.A.C.); 65C-13.010(4)(1)(F.A.C.); and 65C-13.0010(4)(g)(F.A.C.) were amended to read as follows: Rules 65C-13.010(1)(b)1.c.; 65C-13.009(1)(e)10.; 65C-13.010(4)(j); and 65C-13.010(4)(g), Florida Administrative Code, respectively. Respondent was a very loving, caring and affectionate foster parent and expressed her love, care, and affection with L.M., A. M., and A.C. both in and out of the foster home. From the very beginning, Respondent understood that the ultimate goal for L.M. and A.M. was reunification with their biological parents. At some point in time after A.C. was placed in foster care with Respondent, she expressed a desire to adopt A.C. At this time, Respondent understood (mistakenly) that the goal was to terminate the parental rights of A.C.'s biological parents. However, the Department's goal was for reunification and not termination of parental rights. In fact, it is not unusual for foster parents to adopt a child placed in their care when and if the Department terminates the parental rights of the biological parents and offers the child for adoption. Upon learning of the Department's goal of reunification for A.C., Respondent did not pursue the issue of adoption of A.C. Apparently, Vicky Barron and, to some degree, Evelyn Lamison misunderstood Respondent's love, care, and affection for these children as possessive and interfering with the goal of reunification. Vicky Barron is employed by Regency Medical Center, Winter Haven, Florida, supervising the Nurturing Families Program. Evelyn Lamison is the guardian ad litem for L.M. and A.M. Patricia Bryant, Family Service Counselor with the Department, described Respondent as being over-protective but did not see Respondent's love, care, and affection for the children as being an attempt to undermine the goal of reunification. Respondent enrolled L.M., A.M., and A.C., in the Busy Bee Preschool. At the Busy Bee Preschool, the children were at times referred to as the "Huggins" children. However, there was no attempt by Respondent or her husband to conceal the fact that the children were their foster children. They were enrolled under their biological parents' name. Some of their belongings were marked "Huggins" and some of the belongings were marked in the child's given name. The marking of the children's belongings was for the convenience of the Busy Bee Preschool and not intended as a means to deprive the children of sense of their past or present. Although there may have been some hostility on the part of both the Respondent and the biological parents of the children, there was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent, either intentionally or unintentionally, attempted to interfere, sabotage, or prevent the ultimate goal of reunification of the children with the biological parents, notwithstanding the testimony of Vicky Barron and Evelyn Lamison to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility. Without question, there were bruises, scratches and bug bites on L.M., A.M., and A.C. during their stay at Respondent's foster home. Some of these scratches and bruises occurred in and around Respondent's home, some of them occurred at the Busy Bee Preschool. On at least one occasion (March 12, 1998) A.C. fell while in the doctor's office and bruised his face. This bruise was noted in the Busy Bee Preschool notes, as were other scratches and bruises to the children received at home or at the Busy Bee Preschool. The incident of March 12, 1998, was documented by the doctor's office. In fact, it became the basis of an abuse report filed against Respondent which was determined to be unfounded. This alleged abuse was not reported until June 4, 1998. There is no evidence to support the allegation that Respondent told Desiree Smith that the bruise to A.C.'s face which occurred at the doctor's office occurred at the Busy Bee Preschool. Another abuse report was filed against Respondent concerning L.M. and A.M. on March 24, 1998, which was closed as unfounded. Vicky Barron testified that she was the reporter in both abuse reports. She also testified that she disagreed with the Child Protective Investigator's finding that there was no evidence of abuse. Her disagreement was such that she contacted the Investigator's supervisor in an attempt to have the finding reversed. Based on the testimony of the Department personnel and the Busy Bee Preschool personnel who testified at the hearing, it is clear that these bruises, scratches, and bug bites were no more or no less severe than bruises, scratches, and bug bites experienced by other active children the age of L.M., A.M., and A.C., notwithstanding the testimony of Vicky Barron and, to some degree, Evelyn Lamison to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility. Although there is no allegation concerning the Respondent's home, it is clear that Respondent kept her home neat, clean, and safe (although there was some clutter at times). However, when a matter concerning the children's safety was brought to Respondent's attention it was corrected. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent failed to provide a healthy and safe environment for L.M., A.M., and A.C. and to keep them from harm. While there may have been problems between Kristie Huggins and Eric Huggins, Kristie Huggins did not anticipate a separation until April 23, 1998, when Eric Huggins failed to return home after his trip out of town. Through Patty Fazzino, Respondent advised the Department's office in Tallahassee, Florida, of the separation. Subsequently, the Department's Tallahassee office advised the Lakeland office. Although Respondent did not directly notify the Department's local foster care licensing personnel, the Respondent did not intentionally or unintentionally fail to notify the Department of her separation from Eric Huggins. Likewise, Respondent did not fail to immediately notify the Department of any illness or accidents concerning L.M., A.M., and A.C. which required department notification. It appears from the testimony of Mary Jordan that Respondent has completed the necessary hours of training for relicensure but would need to complete some paper work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Respondent Kristie (Huggins) Pfingston her family foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Raymond A. Goodwill, Jr., Esquire 107 Avenue A, Northwest Post Office Box 2334 Winter Haven, Florida 33883
Findings Of Fact The Respondents operated a "therapeutic foster home" in Lee County, North Fort Myers, Florida. A therapeutic foster care home such as this is licensed to accept and care for emotionally disturbed children such as the 9- year-old girl, T.P., involved in this case and, as such, has a mental health technician from the Department available for consultation should such assistance be needed. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with administration of the foster care program mandated by Chapter 409, Florida Statutes, and the above-cited chapter of the Florida Administrative Code. The child involved in this dispute, "T.P.", is a 9-year-old girl who has been diagnosed as emotionally disturbed. The Respondents were aware that she was an emotionally disturbed child when she was placed in their home with one other foster child and were also aware that theirs was a licensed therapeutic foster home with a mental health technician available for consultation. They failed to make use of the services of that technician in dealing with the child's problem involving enuresis and ecopresis. This child's medical problem, involving incontinence of bowel and bladder, is related to the child's emotional disturbance. Because of the nature of this problem and its psychological ramifications, it is even more critical than with ordinary children that slapping or hitting as a punishment for bed- wetting or soiling of clothes or bedding should be avoided. If the child is so punished for incontinence, then the child's guilt feelings or feelings of inadequacy for having "accidentally" soiled bedding or clothes is greatly aggravated. On February 10, 1982, the Respondent, Russell Ostrander, administered corporal punishment to the child T.P. on two occasions, leaving multiple black and blue marks or bruises on the buttocks and thighs of this child "because she was messing in her britches." The child, either later that day or one or two days thereafter, visited with her natural mother who observed the bruises and reported the matter to Mrs. Parker, the Petitioner's first witness, who is a "district intake counselor." Mrs. Parker, and/or the other HRS personnel testifying for the Petitioner, felt that an instance of child abuse had occurred and removed the child from the foster home. The despondent admitted spanking the child on several occasions, but did not believe he could have caused the bruises shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The Respondents admitted however that the child was spanked as punishment for "messing in her britches."
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence in the record, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the license of Janet and Russell Ostrander to operate a foster home be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 12th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony N. DeLuccia, Esquire District Legal Counsel Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Russell and Janet Ostrander Rt. 2, Box 382 Ruden Road North Fort Myers, Florida 33903 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
The Issue The issue to be decided in this case is whether the Petitioner's, Clemintine Lyons, foster home relicensure application should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Clemintine Lyons was first licensed as a foster home in 1988. The licensing staff had several concerns at that time. These concerns included the fact that Ms. Lyons had no prior parenting experience and was taking medication for depression. However, those concerns were addressed and Ms. Lyons was licensed. During the initial licensing period, the Department had difficulty with Ms. Lyons regarding her willingness to work cooperatively with the Department regarding the children in her care and to contact the Department before she made major decisions regarding the children in her care, such as parental visitation. For example, against the wishes of HRS and as a form of punishment for Dorinda, Ms. Lyons kept Dorinda from attending an HRS picnic for prospective adoptees to meet adoptive parents. The HRS staff was concerned about this incident because they were trying to arrange an adoption for Dorinda and the picnic was an important step in that process. Ms. Lyons was also unhappy about HRS counselors trying to have private conversations with Dorinda. Further, on one occasion, Ms. Lyons left the HRS district where she and Dorinda lived to take Dorinda to Dorinda's mother's home in another district to retrieve some clothing given to Dorinda by Ms. Lyons which had been left at the mother's home. Ms. Lyons made the trip because Dorinda was short of clothing. Ms. Lyons took Dorinda to her mother's home without notifying any HRS counselors. When Ms. Lyons was ready to leave, Dorinda refused to get in the car, so Ms. Lyons called the police to assist her in taking Dorinda back to her house. The incident was of concern because Ms. Lyons unilateral action could have potentially placed Dorinda in a dangerous situation, given the fact that the abusive parent was still in the home. In short, both incidents involving Dorinda Small demonstrated very poor judgment on the part of Ms. Lyons regarding the care and protection of a child in her care. Department personnel also testified about another incident which occurred during initial licensure of Ms. Lyons regarding two brothers, a six- year old and an eight-year old, she had just received as foster children in her home. The same day that they were brought to the home, they called a taxi while Ms. Lyons was taking a nap and had themselves driven to their aunt and uncle's home. However, the evidence regarding the elopement of these two boys was very vague and cannot be used to infer a lack of ability to care for foster children on the part of Ms. Lyons, especially since foster children come to foster care with a lot of problems including disciplinary and emotional problems. Additionally, in 1989, Ms. Lyons applied to the Department to become an adoptive parent. While going through the training and background checks, the Department, for the first time, discovered an incident involving a foster child who had been placed in Ms. Lyons' home. Clara Mitchell, a neighbor and friend of Ms. Lyons, informed the Department that she had invited Ms. Lyons and Dorinda Small, a foster child living in Ms. Lyons' home, to her home for Thanksgiving. Before eating, Ms. Lyons fixed a plate of food for Dorinda. When Dorinda noticed that tomatoes had been placed on her plate, she told Ms. Lyons that she did not like them and would not eat them although she had eaten tomatoes before. Ms. Lyons became upset and hit Dorinda across the face and told her to go home. Dorinda left Ms. Mitchell's home, but had to wait outside for Ms. Lyons because Ms. Lyons' door was locked. Ms. Lyons stayed at Mrs. Mitchell's home for about 45 minutes to an hour before going back home and letting Dorinda come inside. Once the Department learned of this incident, the Department made it very clear to Ms. Lyons that the Department's policy prohibited the use of any corporal punishment on a foster child. Ms. Lyons admitted she was aware of this policy and that she understood she was not to use corporal punishment on a foster child again. However, despite the problems with Dorinda Small and the two boys, Ms. Lyons was relicensed on the recommendation of a licensed counselor who felt that because of the desperate need for foster parents, Ms. Lyons with more training and closer supervision, would learn to grow into the role of a foster parent. Towards that end, Ms. Lyons voluntarily agreed to go through additional training known as the Model Approach to Partnerships and Parenting. The model approach program was a thirty-hour training seminar. One of the topics specifically addressed was role identification, specifically the role of a foster parent in relation to HRS, the foster child and the biological family. This training was in addition to the training that Ms. Lyons went through before her initial licensure. In addition, Ms. Lyons was sent information on several different occasions which outlined Ms. Lyons' duties and roles in interacting with HRS, the foster child and the biological family. One of the primary duties of the foster parent is to provide a caring environment for the foster child as well as consult with either HRS or the biological parent before making any major decisions regarding the foster children. It quickly became apparent that the additional training had not improved Ms. Lyons' ability as a foster parent. From July 17 through August 28, 1991, three foster children were placed in Ms. Lyons' home. The children's mother, Robin Williams, had requested foster care assistance for her six children, while Ms. Williams went through voluntary drug rehabilitation. The three oldest, Rasheen, age ten, Shykimma, age eight, and Raheem, age seven, were placed with Ms. Lyons The voluntary aspects of Ms. Williams' decision meant that she was under no court restrictions as to visitation or telephone contact and could remove her children at any time from foster care. Problems with the foster arrangement arose almost immediately. The protective services worker for the Williams', Kathy Perkins Guy, began receiving complaints about Ms. Lyons from Ms. Williams, the Williams children and counselors working with Ms. Williams in her drug treatment. One complaint by the Williams family against Ms. Lyons was that she was not permitting visitation as often as the Williams and HRS felt should be permitted. However, after complaints by Ms. Williams, the Williams' were satisfied with the frequency of visitation. On the other hand, HRS tried to show continued lack of cooperation by Ms. Lyons when Kathy Perkins Guy, the Williams' case worker, tried to arrange visitation on one particular Saturday, but Ms. Lyons told her that she had too many errands to run and it was not convenient. The inconvenience was legitimate because Ms. Lyons sister had died and she was taking care of the funeral arrangements. However, Ms. Lyons never communicated these facts to the HRS caseworker. It is important to note that Ms. Guy did not require Ms. Lyons to facilitate visitation in this instance. Ms. Guy only asked if Ms. Lyons would. Such "asking" by HRS leaves the clear impression that the licensee may decline the request without adverse impact on that person's foster license or future licensure. The incident does demonstrate poor communication by both HRS and Ms. Lyons. Additionally, Ms. Lyons also did not make arrangements for the Williams children to call their mother on a daily basis, but restricted them to one phone call two times a week. Ms. Williams deposition testimony indicated that the frequency of telephone calls was sufficient. Again, Ms. Guy had requested more frequent telephone contact. Ms. Lyons declined because getting through to the mother at the addiction center was difficult to arrange because of the center's restrictions on the mother. Again, HRS only asked for more frequent telephone contact. HRS did not require it. The clear impression to the licensee was that she could decline the request. Ms. Williams also complained that Ms. Lyons had cut her daughter Shykimma's hair without first consulting her. Such consultation with the parent is normally required by the Department. The children complained that they were not permitted to wear underwear while they slept at night and were not being allowed to sleep on pillows or use blankets. When questioned, Ms. Lyons stated that the children were placed in her home with very few clothes, and that she did not want to have to wash clothes every day. However, a foster parent is instructed to have spare clothing on hand or to be prepared to supply spare clothing. The Williams' felt they had adequate clothing but that their clothes often smelled bad the second day. As to the lack of pillows and blankets, she said that the kids did not need blankets because it was summer and the children did have sheets. She also said she did not want the children messing up her pillow shams but that they had other pillows to sleep with. The Williams' depositions demonstrated they had other pillows which they could use. The evidence also demonstrated that the children were dressed appropriately for bed since they slept in pajamas. In addition, Ms. Lyons made the children recite Bible verses as a punishment even though they were Muslim. On one occasion, Ms. Lyons had Rasheen recite a verse to Ms. Guy, which he interpreted to Ms. Guy to mean that he had to obey Ms. Lyons. Again the evidence regarding these incidents was vague and seemed to be engendered more by the Williams children's dislike of Ms. Lyons and anything she did, as well as a biological mother who was frantic over her children. Additionally, the evidence regarding the Bible verses was equivocal as to the appropriateness of such an action given the historical nature of the Muslim and Christian religions' roots in the Old Testament. Ms. Lyons also brought the children to work with her. At that time she was employed cleaning offices after hours, and she put the children to work cleaning toilets, sinks and vacuuming the floor. However, there was no convincing evidence that these activities were inappropriate in any way. On the other hand, Ms. Lyons called Rasheen "stupid." One of these name-callings escalated into an argument with Rasheen, which Ms. Lyons ended by calling a policeman friend of hers to talk to him about showing respect. Ms. Lyons did not intend this name to be abusive, but it was readily apparent that the children took the names as derogatory. The use of such references demonstrates poor judgment in caring for foster children. Ms. Lyons also had punished Shykimma for bedwetting by making her stay in her room for the rest of the day, which violates the disciplinary code for foster parents. Such punishment is a clear violation of HRS's disciplinary code for foster parents. Finally, Ms. Lyons spanked Rasheen with a flip-flop shoe for spilling rice on the floor. Again Ms. Lyons knew such discipline violated the HRS disciplinary code for foster parents. Additionally, Ms. Lyons had been warned earlier about using corporal punishment on a foster child when HRS had learned about Ms. Lyons slapping Dorinda Small. The Williams children were removed from Ms. Lyons home in August 1991. At that time, Sue Brown, supervisor of the foster care licensing unit went to Ms. Lyons' home to discuss with her the problems with the Williams' placement. During the discussion, Ms. Lyons admitted to punishing Shykimma for wetting the bed by making her stay in her room for 35 minutes. Ms. Brown pointed out that children are not to be punished for bedwetting problems, but Ms. Lyons had no response. Ms. Brown spoke to the Williams children after meeting with Ms. Lyons, and they expressed near hatred for Ms. Lyons. They said she was very demanding and that they never wanted to go back there. In this case, it is fairly apparent that HRS is tired of trying to work with Ms. Lyons as a foster parent and that in its attempt not to relicense her the Department listed every perceived "affront" of Ms. Lyons towards HRS. Most of these complaints were spurious and could not form the basis for an adverse licensure decision. However, HRS did succeed in demonstrating that Ms. Lyons committed at least three willful violations of the rules governing foster care parents. Those violations were punishment for bedwetting, name calling and two incidents of administering corporal punishment. Moreover, because these violations were willful and in disregard of the disciplinary rules of HRS of which Ms. Lyons had knowledge, Ms. Lyons is not qualified for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is therefore RECOMMENDED: that the Department deny Petitioner's application for relicensure as a foster home. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 28th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX 93-5975 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 4, 8 and 22, of Petitioner's Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 9 and 14 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 8 and 11 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Ann Corya Curvin, Esquire Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32501 Fredrick Gant, Esquire Allbritton & Gant 322 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent Marie Smith has committed an intentional or negligent act materially affecting the health or safety of children for whom she operated as a "medical foster care" parent or provider.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Marie Smith, was first licensed in 1992, as a foster care parent by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, since re-named the Department of Children and Family Services. In 1996 she became a qualified medical foster parent, authorized to keep children with special medical problems. The Respondent received special training to become a medical foster parent from Children's Medical Services, a unit of the Department of Health, which oversees the progress of children placed in medical foster care. Some of the training the Respondent received concerned a child, T.B. It involved the use of the medication Flovent, which is used to treat asthma and other bronchial conditions. Flovent is dispensed in a small aerosol container and is administered by use of an inhaler. The training which the Respondent received includes the manner in which the person administering Flovent can ascertain when the container is empty and no longer usable. In connection with the Respondent's training as a medical foster parent, Ms. Smith was also instructed in the importance of giving all medications as prescribed and in how to document administration of medications. Through training and practice she learned to execute forms provided by Children's Medical Services (CMS) called treatment records and medication records, in which were logged each dose of medication given. Although not connected with her training as a foster parent, she also received ninety hours in classroom instruction which resulted in her being certified as a pharmacy technician by the State of Florida. On July 29, 1996, the child D.P. was born. D.P. and his twin brother were placed in Ms. Smith's foster home in October 1996. D.P. lived with Ms. Smith continuously until he was removed from the home in March 1999. In July 1998, D.P. was diagnosed as having bronchiolitis, a chronic inflammation of the bronchial passages of the lungs, later identified as asthma. In order to treat this condition he was prescribed Flovent. The purpose of the medication was to reduce the frequency of exacerbations or "asthma attacks." The medication was not designed to alleviate attacks already in progress, but to prevent future attacks. The medication is only effective if given as prescribed over an extended period of time. If Flovent is not administered as prescribed over a period of time the patient may suffer an increased incidence of asthma. The failure to take preventive steps can result in long-term damage to the lungs according to Dr. Bailey. Ms. Smith filled the first prescription for Flovent at Smith's Pharmacy on July 9, 1998. Only one container of Flovent was dispensed on that occasion. A container of Flovent contains an advertised one hundred and twenty (120) metered actuations or "puffs." The literature inserted into every package contains a warning to the user to use the number of actuations, one hundred and twenty, indicated on the box because the correct amount of medicine in each puff cannot be guaranteed after that point. D.P.'s prescription required him to receive two puffs per day, once in the morning and once in the evening. Since the label on the container itself stated that there were only one hundred and twenty puffs per canister, the first container was due to be replaced after sixty days of use at two puffs per day. Notwithstanding this fact, the prescription was not refilled until October 16, 1998, or ninety-eight days after the first container was obtained. Thus, for a period of thirty- eight days, D.P. either received no dose at all, or potentially received an inadequate dose of medicine. An actual test of a full canister of Flovent was conducted at the hearing. That revealed that one could get approximately one hundred and fifty- seven puffs from a canister before it is empty. However, the literature which comes with the medication makes it clear that a user cannot depend on the adequacy of the dosage after one hundred and twenty puffs. Thus, even if Ms. Smith could have dispensed one hundred and sixty puffs from a canister, and if she maintained that she was administering two puffs per day, she would have run out of the medication after no more than eighty days. Ninety-eight days elapsed however, between the filling of the prescription and the first refill which was obtained in October 1998. Even under Ms. Smith's description of the dosing and administering of the medication, D.P. either had to have gone without his medication for some days or was receiving a less-than-standard amount in order for the medication to last as long as she maintained it did (i.e., possibly one puff per day). Ms. Smith maintained that she actually obtained two packages of Flovent from the pharmacy rather than one on October 16, 1998. The pharmacy records, however, show only one container being dispensed both in July and in October. Those records were made contemporaneously with the receipt and filling of the prescription. The pharmacist and pharmacy technician each double-check the work of the other. Thus if Ms. Smith had obtained double the amount of medication, both the pharmacist and the pharmacy technician would have had to make the same error at the same time, which is improbable. Moreover, there is no label on the extra box taped to the box dispensed on October 16, 1998. It is not the practice of the Smith Pharmacy to tape such boxes together or to label only one box. In any event, on October 16, 1998, Ms. Smith got the prescription refilled. On that day she picked up one container of Flovent. The prescription had not changed at that point so D.P. was still supposed to receive two puffs per day, so the container should have been replaced after sixty days. In view of the fact that Ms. Smith was keeping T.B., another child at the same time she provided foster care for D.P., and since T.B. also had a prescription for Flovent, it has not been established that Ms. Smith could have only gotten an extra Flovent box from the pharmacy, with the boxes containing the two canisters taped together and dispensed together on October 16, 1998. She could have simply used T.B.'s prescription box. The prescription obtained on October 16, 1998, was not re-filled again until March 10, 1999. A period of one hundred and forty-five days had thus passed before a new container was obtained. The test performed at hearing showed that as much as one hundred and fifty-six to one hundred and sixty puffs are contained in such a canister and therefore the medication might have lasted the one hundred and forty-five days. However, if the manufacturer's warning or instruction on the literature supplied with the canister is to be believed, after one hundred and twenty puffs had been dispensed (a sixty-day supply) then less medication might be dispensed with each puff thereafter. Since one hundred and forty-five days elapsed before a new prescription and container of medicine was obtained, D.P. may have failed to received one hundred and seventy doses of medicine over a period of five months. This could clearly have resulted in a worsening of D.P.'s condition. Moreover, Ms. Smith incorrectly documented the administration of the Flovent as though she were in fact giving the medication twice per day as prescribed. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 in evidence. The testimony of the witnesses employed with the CMS who oversee the care for children in medical foster care uniformly found that the Respondent provided good care and they never saw any evidence that medical care for the child D.P. was neglected. In fact, Dr. Samir Ebbeid, a pediatric cardiologist who treated the child from October 1996 through April of 1999, found that the Respondent uniformly complied with his instructions about care for the child and thought that the care of the child by the Respondent between the visits to his office was appropriate. In fact he found that the child improved while under the Respondent's care and that there was no reason to believe that the child's medical care under the care of Ms. Smith, the Respondent, was ever neglected. The child's asthmatic condition actually improved during the time he was under the Respondent's medical foster care.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services suspending the foster care license of Marie Smith for a period of ninety days, during which time she should undertake an approved course of instruction concerning the proper administration and record-keeping of administration of prescription drugs for children in her care. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2000, 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 (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 March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Room 252-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Richard D. Ogburn, Esquire Post Office Box 923 Panama City, Florida 32402 Samuel C. Chavers, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 Petitioner's application for renewal of her family foster home license should be denied on the grounds set forth in the June 20, 1995, letter from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), Respondent's predecessor, to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is (as was its predecessor, HRS) a state government licensing and regulatory agency. From September of 1989 to June 30, 1995, Petitioner was licensed by HRS (on a yearly basis) to operate a family foster home at her residence in Palm Beach County. In May of 1994, as part of the licensure renewal process, Petitioner signed an "Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for Dependent Children" (Agreement). In so doing, she agreed that she would, as a licensed foster parent, among other things, "comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the department," "immediately report any injuries or illness of a child in [her] care," and "abide by the department's discipline policy." The previous day (May 23, 1994), Petitioner had received and signed a copy of HRS's "discipline policy," which provided as follows: FOSTER PARENT(S): You are aware that for some time, Health and Rehabilitative Services has discouraged the use of Physical punishment, including spanking, for children in foster care. Now, however, we have an Administrative Rule statewide which prohibits foster parents from using corporal punishment on foster children. This section of administrative Rule 10M- 6, which deals with discipline is reproduced in the following paragraph. "Licensing and relicensing procedure developed by the Department shall include the presentation of written foster care disciplinary policies to applicants and licensed foster parents to ensure that appropriate nonabusive disciplinary practices are used in dealing with foster children's behavior. Discipline is a training process through which the child develops the self- control, self-reliance and orderly conduct necessary for them to assume responsibilities, make daily living decisions and live according to accepted levels of social behaviors. The purpose of discipline is education and rational. It focuses on deterring unacceptable behavior by encouraging the child to develop internal controls. Foster parents are expected to define rules which establish limits and types of acceptable behavior. These rules must be clearly explained to each child and applied equally to all children. Prohibited disciplinary practices include group punishments for misbehavior of individuals; withholding of meals, mail or family visits; hitting a child with an object; spanking a child; physical, sexual, emotional and verbal abuse; humiliating or degrading punishment which subjects the child to ridicule; being placed in a locked room; and delegation of authority for punishment to other children or persons not known to the child. The use of isolation shall be used only for short periods of time as a therapeutic measure when a child's behavior is temporarily out of control. Such periods of isolation shall be observed and supervised by the foster parent to ensure the safety of the child." If you have problems with this new rule, please discuss this with your licensing counselors who will be able to help you work out alternative disciplinary techniques for each child, according to his/her needs. My signature acknowledges that I have read this statement, that I understand the content and agree to abide by it. A. G. is a 12 year-old foster child who currently resides in Boys Town in Tallahassee. Before entering the foster care system, he had been the victim of abuse. In 1994, A. G. lived in Petitioner's family foster home along with three other male foster children, J. W., M. M., and B. P., all of whom were teenagers with troubled pasts and juvenile records. On or about December 15, 1994, the day before A. G. was scheduled to leave Petitioner's home for another foster home, the other boys angrily reported to Petitioner that A. G. had misappropriated a gift certificate that belonged to M. M. and a watch that belonged to B. P. M. M. was particularly upset and angry about what A. G. had done. Upon receiving this report, Petitioner instructed the boys to "take care of" the matter. The boys then went to A. G.'s room and proceeded to hit A. G. with their hands and a belt. A. G. sustained a number of bruises on his buttocks and the back of his legs as a result of the attack. A. G. yelled and screamed as he was being hit. Petitioner was in her bedroom, which was adjacent to the room where the beating took place. At no time during the attack did she leave her bedroom to tell the boys to stop beating A. G., nor did she take any other action to stop the beating. Petitioner exercised extremely poor judgment in instructing the older boys to "take care of" the matter. She should have realized that the carte blanche she gave J. W., M. M., and B. P., who were upset and angry with A. G., placed A. G.'s physical safety at risk. She compounded her error by not carefully monitoring the older boys subsequent activities to make sure that they resolved the matter appropriately without harming A. G. The following morning, A. G. left Petitioner's home for another foster home, that of Janet Kerimoglu and her husband. A. G. arrived at the Kerimoglu home with very few belongings. Moreover, his physical appearance concerned Ms. Kerimoglu. A. G. appeared to be very thin. Furthermore, he had head lice and fresh bruises on his body. When asked about the bruises, A. G. explained that he had been beaten up by some teenagers the day before at Petitioner's home. A report that A. G. had been the victim of abuse while at Petitioner's home was made to HRS's abuse registry. The report was investigated by HRS's protective services investigative unit. On January 10, 1995, following the completion of the investigation, FPSS Report No. 94-117809 issued. The report classified as "proposed confirmed" the allegation that Respondent was guilty of neglect in connection with the beating that A. G. received at her home on or about December 15, 1994. According to the report, the beating occurred "because of [Petitioner's] lack of supervision and [her] failure to protect [A. G.]," a finding which is supported by the preponderance of the record evidence in the instant case. A request to expunge or amend the report was denied on June 6, 1995. By letter dated June 20, 1995, Petitioner was advised that her foster family home license would not renewed because of the finding of neglect made in FPSS Report No. 94-117809.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for renewal of her family foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1998.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' foster home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioners were licensed to operate a family foster home. Their most current license was effective through April 7, 2004. Petitioners have served as foster parents for about five years. There has been no report of child neglect or child abuse in their foster home prior to the time period relevant here. A. H. is a 10-year-old male. At all times relevant here, A. H. was in the fourth grade. Sometime prior to October 3, 2003, Respondent removed A. H. from his mother's custody and placed him in an initial foster home. A. H.'s first foster home shall be referred to hereinafter as the Gs' foster home. Thomas Munkittrick worked for Respondent as a family service counselor. A.H. was one of Mr. Munkittrick's clients. A. H. had separate visitations with his mother and father on October 6, 2003. Mr. Munkittrick supervised both visits. During a visit to the Gs' foster home on October 14, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick noticed a rash on A. H.'s stomach. The rash appeared to be a ringworm. Mr. Munkittrick did not observe any bruises on A. H.'s arms. On or about October 15, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick spoke to Petitioners to determine whether they would accept A. H. in their home as a foster child. For reasons that are not clear, Respondent changed A. H.'s placement to Petitioners' foster home that same day. On October 16, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick took A. H. to see a medical doctor at Express Care of Belleview. Mr. Munkittrick and A. H.'s mother were present for the medical examination, during which A. H. removed his shirt. Mr. Munkittrick did not observe any bruises on A. H.'s arms. A. H.'s medical record dated October 16, 2003, indicates A. H. had a scratch/bruise on his nose, a ringworm on his stomach, and a rash on his wrist. According to the doctor's notes, A. H. reported that he accidentally injured his nose while playing football with Petitioners' dogs. The doctor's notes do not refer to any bruises on A. H.'s arms. On October 23, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick visited A. H. in Petitioners' home. Mr. Munkittrick saw no visible marks or bruises on A. H. Instead, Mr. Munkittrick observed what he believed was dirt on A. H.'s arms. Mr. Munkittrick also observed that A. H. was slightly flushed from playing outside with Petitioners' dogs, two large Doberman Pinchers. During a visit to Petitioners' home on October 30, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick observed multiple bruises on both of A. H.'s wrists and arms. The bruises were round and as large as quarters. There were no scratch or bite marks on A. H.'s arms. Prior to October 30, 2003, Petitioners had not advised Respondent about the bruises on A. H.'s arms. During the October 30, 2003, home visit, Petitioner R. B., the foster mother, indicated that she had never seen the bruises on A. H.'s arms before Mr. Munkittrick pointed them out. She relied on A. H. to explain how he was injured. During the hearing, Petitioner R. B. admitted that she saw blue/purple bruises on A. H.'s arms for the first time two or three days after his medical examination on October 16, 2003. Despite the inconsistency of Petitioner R. B.'s statements, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner R. B. had no first-hand knowledge as to the cause of the bruises. Her testimony that she did not cause the bruises on A. H.'s arms is credible. On October 31, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick went to A. H.'s school to photograph the bruises on his arms. He then took A. H. for an examination by Respondent's child protection team. The examination included an evaluation of the bruises by an advanced registered nurse practitioner. The nurse was qualified by training and experience to assess pediatric injuries resulting from physical and sexual child abuse. The nurse was unable to reach a conclusion as to the exact source of the bruises. She could not rule out that they were self-inflicted. However, the nurse's testimony provides competent evidence that the bruises on A. H.'s arms were consistent with being grabbed by another person and that they were inconsistent with injuries resulting from roughhousing with dogs. Bruises heal in stages identified by colors beginning with red and ending with brown before they disappear. The colors of bruises in order of healing are red, blue, purple, green, yellow, and brown. In general, a bruise is: (a) red within one to two days of infliction; (b) blue within one to four days of infliction; and (c) yellow/green from the fifth or sixth day up to the tenth day after infliction. A. H.'s bruises ranged in color from red to yellow/green to yellow. The yellow and yellow/green bruises were located on both of A. H.'s upper extremities. He had two forearm bruises with a red component. It is highly unlikely that A. H. received the bruises prior to October 6, 2003. It is more likely that the injuries causing the bruises were inflicted approximately one to two weeks prior to October 31, 2003, i.e., between October 18, 2003, and October 31, 2003. A. H. was living in Petitioners' home and attending public school during this period. On the evening of October 31, 2003, Respondent's staff decided to move A. H. to a third foster home. Respondent's child protective investigator took A. H. back to Petitioners' home to pick up his clothes and belongings. Petitioner R. B. became excited and increasingly emotional when she learned that Respondent was changing A. H.'s placement to another foster home. Petitioner R. B. began yelling, in A. H.'s presence, that he was a liar and a "schizo" just like his "schizophrenic mother." The child protective investigator had to ask A. H. to leave the room when Petitioner R. B. began calling him and his mother names. Petitioner R. B.'s behavior on the evening of October 31, 2003, was inappropriate. However, the deputy sheriff, who was assisting with the change in placement, did not make any arrests. On the evening of October 31, 2003, and during the hearing, Petitioner J. B., the foster father, admitted that he had seen the bruises on A. H.'s arms sometime during the week before October 31, 2003. On both occasions, Petitioner J. B. stated that A. H. was crazy. Petitioner J. B. had no first-hand knowledge as to the cause of the bruises. During the hearing, Petitioner J. B. provided credible testimony that neither he nor his dogs caused the injuries. In order to operate a foster home, foster parents must undergo training on an annual basis. The training includes knowing when to advise Respondent about injuries to their foster children. The requirement to report injuries is a part of the annual service agreement signed by Respondent's staff and foster parents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order revoking Petitioners' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 12th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: J. B. (Address of Record) R. B. (Address of record) Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Paul Flounlacker, 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 Should Petitioners' application for family foster home license be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: The Department is the agency in the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of family foster homes. Linda Patterson and Robert Patterson (Pattersons), a married couple, applied for licensure as a family foster home. The Pattersons completed the initial training for prospective foster parents in March of 1995. The Department completed a home study on the Pattersons. The results of the home study and background information on the Pattersons, including the Pattersons tenure as foster parents in Connecticut, were considered by the Department before denying the Pattersons' application for licensure as a family foster home for children. On August 24, 1994, the Department issued Notice Of Denial to the Patterson which in pertinent part provides: This letter provides notice to you that your application for a family foster home license is denied, based on Section 409.175(8)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10M-6.023, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The reasons for this denial are: Mr. Patterson has been charged with numerous law violations in the past. Although none of the law violations auto- matically disqualifies him from fostering, they do reflect a lack of judgment needed to provide adequate care for foster children, indicating an inability to comply with Rule 10-6.023(e). Your home was investigated in August of 1992 because of allegations of sexual abuse on your 18 year old adopted daughter. You admitted inappropriate contact with this child. As a result of this investigation your license was limited, and your home was approved only for males, ages 5 to 11. In April of 1993, your marital coun- selor stated that you have difficulty setting limits with sexuality, and recommended against the placement of any child with a known history of sexual acting out, or approaching puberty. This recommendation was made shortly after an incident of child on child sexual abuse in your home. In September of 1993, a clinical psychologist evaluated you. He stated that Mr. Patterson's ability to control his impulses is "probably" satisfactory, but should not be tested with sexually active adolescent females. He also opined that your family might have some difficulty dealing with sexually abused and acting out children without professional guidance. All of these incidents indicate an inability to comply with Rule 10M-6.023(1)(e), particularly in view of the fact that approxi- mately 85 percent of our foster children fall into the categories of children that should not be placed with Mr. Patterson. Robert Patterson admitted to several law violation between 1960 and 1980. However, most of these violations were misdemeanors and committed while he was a juvenile. There was one felony violation (car theft) by Robert Patterson while he was a juvenile. Robert Patterson admitted that in 1980 he was charged with larceny concerning an alleged fraudulent claim for unemployment compensation to which he pled nolo contendere. Notwithstanding that he pled nolo contendere to the charge, Robert Patterson contended that the unemployment compensation claim was a legal claim. There was no evidence of any further law violations after the nolo contendere plea in 1980. The Pattersons were licensed in Connecticut as foster parents for approximately 10 years. During the time the Pattersons were licensed as a foster home in Connecticut the Patterson home was investigated because of a complaint alleging sexual abuse of a female foster child in the Pattersons' home. Although there was no finding of sexual abuse of this female, Robert Patterson admitted to having unintentionally touched the female's breast and buttocks while they were wrestling. There was another incident where this same female foster child, while inebriated, rubbed Robert Patterson' penis several times. Robert Patterson testified that he felt sexually attracted to this female child, but that he never acted on those feelings. The female child that was the subject of the abuse complaint was not removed from the Pattersons' home, and subsequently the State of Connecticut allowed the Pattersons to adopt this child. After this investigation, the Pattersons requested that their foster care home license be limited to males, ages 5 years to 11 years. This limitation on placement was requested by the Patterson because they felt inadequate to cope with sexually acting out or sexually abused children. The Paterson's marriage counselor in Connecticut advised the Connecticut DCF (the equivalent of Florida DHRS) that the Pattersons had difficulty setting limits with sexuality, and recommended against placement of any child in the Pattersons' home with a known history of sexual acting out, or approaching puberty. Many foster children are victims of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation which causes these foster children to behavior inappropriately. Often the Department is unaware of prior abuse or the resultant behavior when a child is placed in a foster home. A foster parent's ability to deal appropriately with sexually abused and sexually acting out children is a very important attribute, particularly given the number of children in foster care with these difficulties. The Pattersons requested to be licensed for placement of males only, ages 5 years to 11 years. The Department has licensed foster homes with age and sex restrictions on placements. However, the Department attempts to avoid licensing homes with such restrictions. Such restrictions on placement interfere with the Department's statutory duty to keep siblings together, and with the goal of attempting to avoid moving children from foster home to foster home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying the Petitioners licensure as a family foster home. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of September, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 23rd day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-1567 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department in this case. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioners elected not to file any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 - 19 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Bldg. 2, Room 204X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Room 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-07001 Robert and Linda Patterson 8653 Indian Ridge Way Lakeland, Florida 33809 M. Elizabeth Wall, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 200 North Kentucky Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33801
