The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Donna Vermeulen, is eligible to be relicensed as a family foster home.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed as a family foster home in Dade County, Florida, for approximately 19 years. The Respondent had received all of the training that was required for such a license. In 1997, Rosemary Bridges was a foster care counselor employed by the DCFS. In June of that year, Ms. Bridges was assigned to be the foster care counselor for three of the four foster children who were living with the Respondent at that time. Shortly after her assignment as foster care counselor for those children, Ms. Bridges made her first visit to the Respondent's home to check on the status of the children. On her fist visit to the Respondent's home, Ms. Bridges found the home to be untidy and unclean. There were clothes everywhere, dishes piled up, and no linen on the children's beds. The children all looked unkempt. The hair was not combed on any of the children. Ms. Bridges thought the general condition of the Respondent's home was potentially hazardous to the health of the foster children and she considered the possibility of removing the foster children from the home. On the day of Ms. Bridges' first visit, a therapist was also present. Ms. Bridges and the therapist discussed the situation with the Respondent. On that day the Respondent's arm was in a cast, and the Respondent explained that, because she had a broken arm, she was not able to take care of the house and the foster children as well as she usually did. The foster children had been with the Respondent for a long time, and the Respondent wanted them to continue to stay with her. Following the discussion with the Respondent, Ms. Bridges decided not to remove the foster children from the Respondent's home. Instead, Ms. Bridges made arrangements with the Children's Home Society for the Respondent to receive services for herself and for the foster children. Ms. Bridges returned to the Respondent's home a month later. The condition of the home was the same as it was during the June visit. The foster children were again unkempt and unclean. At the time of the visit, Ms. Bridges was also concerned about reports of inappropriate activities involving the foster children and one of the Respondent's two sons.2 Ms. Bridges and the children's therapist continued to work with the Respondent in an effort to improve the situation in the Respondent's home. Sara Leidtke is a mental health counselor who works primarily with children in foster homes, doing intensive on-site therapy. In February of 1997, Ms. Leidtke began providing therapy to three of the foster children in the Respondent's home. Ms. Leidtke continued to provide therapy twice a week to those children while they were living with the Respondent.3 All three of the foster children were supposed to be taking medication prescribed by a physician at the clinic where Ms. Leidtke worked. The medication was to treat hyperactivity and depression. One of the foster children was having nightly episodes of bed-wetting. On numerous occasions Ms. Leidtke recommended that the Respondent take that child to the enuresis clinic for treatment. The same recommendation was made by the physician who was treating the child's psychological problems. The Respondent never took that foster child to the enuresis clinic. From February of 1997 through August of 1997, Ms. Leidtke was concerned about the personal hygiene of the three foster children to whom she was providing therapy services. Ms. Leidtke described her concerns in the following words:4 All three of the children exhibited poor hygiene while in the Vermeulen home. Their clothes were often soiled, their hair dirty, and they were often unbathed with a strong body order. This therapist worked with them on this and gave Mrs. Vermeulen a hygiene checklist to utilize with them. The children spent a great deal of time working on this during therapy, but this therapist had difficulty getting Mrs. Vermeulen to follow through with checklists on days that therapy did not take place. On a number of occasions, the children stated that they were not able to attend to their hygiene because they did not have toothbrushes or other personal items. [J.] stated numerous times that she did not ever wash her hair, and that she did not use deodorant/antiperspirant because the family shared one roll-on deodorant and she did not want to use it or could not find it. When asked about these difficulties, Mrs. Vermeulen stated that the children were lying and that she was waiting on a check to buy the items that they needed. On two separate occasions, this therapist arranged for a PsychSolutions Activities Coordinator to come to the home to do the children's hair, but Mrs. Vermeulen canceled both appointments. In August of 1997, Ms. Bridges made another visit to the Respondent's home. Again, the condition of the home was the same as it had been on the two prior visits. Again, the foster children were unkempt and unclean. Ms. Bridges decided, primarily because of the lack of improvement in the condition of the home and the lack of improvement in the care of the foster children, that the foster children should be relocated to another foster home. In the course of making arrangements for the relocation, Ms. Bridges discovered a several month supply of prescription medicines for the three foster children. The amount of the prescription medicines in the home confirmed that the foster children had not been taking the medicines with the frequency prescribed by the physician. On August 29, 1998, when Ms. Leidtke arrived at the Respondent's home, she found that the Respondent's other son, M. V., was sitting at the Respondent's home visiting with the Respondent. M. V. is the Respondent's adopted son. In August of 1997, M. V. was 18 or 19 years old. On that day, M. V. had apparently escaped from a residential treatment program, where he had been confined for approximately four years. M. V. was being treated because, approximately four years earlier, he had sexually assaulted one of the Respondent's foster children, as well as the Respondent's adopted daughter. The foster child who had been sexually assaulted by M. V. was still living in the Respondent's home. M. V.'s presence in the home was very upsetting to that child. Later the same day, the police were called and the police returned M. V. to the treatment facility from which he had escaped. On August 29, 1997, the DCFS removed the foster children from the Respondent's home and placed them in another foster home.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying the Respondent's application for renewal of her family foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent's licenses to operate two group homes should be renewed, or whether renewal should be denied for the reasons charged in the administrative complaints issued by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating group home facilities. The statewide headquarters, or "central office," is in Tallahassee. Regional offices carry out the licensing and regulatory functions within their designated regions, or "areas," in coordination with the central office. APD Area 14 covers Polk, Hardee, and Highlands Counties. Beginning in 2007 and at all times material to this proceeding, HIOTW has been a provider of various residential and non-residential services to developmentally disabled persons in Lakeland, Polk County, Florida, within APD Area 14. In 2007, HIOTW was licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to provide non-residential homemaker and companion care services. In November 2008, HIOTW became licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate Paces Trail Group Home to provide residential habilitation services to developmentally disabled adults. Shortly thereafter, HIOTW was licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate its second group home, Hampton Group Home. HIOTW was licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate Timbergreen in May 2009. In February 2010, the APD Area 14 office issued a license to HIOTW to operate its fourth group home in Lakeland--Lake Miriam. The group home license renewal of these two group homes, each with a capacity to serve six adult male residents with developmental disabilities, is at issue in this proceeding. After initial licensure of a group home, the license must be renewed annually. All of HIOTW's group homes successfully have gone through the license renewal process one or more times, except for Lake Miriam, which is seeking its first license renewal. On November 12, 2010, HIOTW submitted an application to the APD Area 14 office to renew its license to operate Lake Miriam. On March 3, 2011, HIOTW submitted an application to renew its license to operate Timbergreen. By letter dated March 25, 2011, Petitioner denied the Lake Miriam license renewal application (March 25 Denial Letter). Petitioner relies on the following charges alleged in the March 25 Denial Letter as the basis for Petitioner's decision: On or about April 14, 2010, an employee of the applicant left two vulnerable adult group home residents alone in a car for at least ten minutes while that employee conducted business inside a bank. One of the adult residents who was left unsupervised in the car had a history of sexually molesting children and other vulnerable adults. The other resident who was left unsupervised in the car was non-verbal. This instance threatened the health, safety, and well being of the applicant's residents in violation of page A-8 of the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook and Rule 65G-2.012(15)(b), F.A.C. On or about September 29, 2010, an employee of the applicant was transporting group home residents when one of the residents left the vehicle without the driver's knowledge. The vulnerable adult resident was later located at a neighborhood store. This instance threatened the health, safety, and well being of the applicant's residents in violation of page A-8 of the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook and Rule 65G- 2.012(15)(b), F.A.C. The March 25 Denial Letter also alleged that HIOTW failed to submit a current approved emergency management plan as a third reason to deny the license renewal application. However, Petitioner abandoned the third charge at the outset of the final hearing. Petitioner sought to support its proposed denial of the Lake Miriam license renewal application solely as a penal measure based on the two alleged incidents quoted above. As such, but for these two alleged incidents, Petitioner acknowledges that Lake Miriam's license renewal application is otherwise entitled to approval. By letter dated April 29, 2011, Petitioner denied the Timbergreen license renewal application (April 29 Denial Letter). The April 29 Denial Letter set forth the same two charges that were alleged in the March 25 Denial Letter as the basis for Petitioner's decision. In other words, the same two incidents were asserted as grounds for denying both the Lake Miriam license renewal application and the Timbergreen license renewal application. But for these two incidents, Timbergreen's license renewal application, like Lake Miriam's application, is otherwise entitled to approval. First Alleged Incident (on or about April 14, 2010) The credible evidence established the following facts relevant to the first charged incident. In early April 2010, an employee of HIOTW's licensed companion care service, Frank Davis, was providing companion care to R.O., a developmentally disabled adult. R.O. was not a resident of any HIOTW group home. Instead, R.O. received only non-residential companion services through HIOTW from its employee Frank Davis. As previously noted, companion care services are licensed and regulated by a different agency, AHCA. R.O. was classified as developmentally disabled due to mild mental retardation and behavioral problems. R.O. had a history of sexually abusing children and vulnerable adults. R.O. also had a known tendency of "telling big whoppers," i.e., he was known to be a habitual liar. R.O. apparently told someone two stories of alleged incidents involving his companion, HIOTW employee Frank Davis. On April 14, 2010, the person to whom R.O. told the stories reported the two alleged incidents to the hotline operated by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), which fields reports of possible abuse or neglect.2/ One story told by R.O., as reported to DCF, was that Mr. Davis had left R.O. alone with Mr. Davis's three-year-old daughter. The other story told by R.O., as reported to DCF, was that Mr. Davis had left R.O. alone in a car with a non-verbal vulnerable adult for a period of time while Mr. Davis went into a bank to conduct some business. If true, these allegations of R.O. allegedly being left alone with a child in one instance and with a non-verbal vulnerable adult in the other instance would be of great concern. Both the child and the non-verbal vulnerable adult with whom R.O. was allegedly left alone would have to be considered at great risk of abuse by R.O., given R.O.'s known history of sexually abusing both children and vulnerable adults. With regard to R.O.'s first story, involving Mr. Davis's three-year-old daughter, a DCF adult protective investigator (API) was able to quickly determine that the allegation was completely baseless. In screening this allegation to determine if a formal investigation was warranted, the API spoke with R.O. and then with Samuel Cooper, one of the owners of HIOTW, on April 15, 2010, the day after the hotline call. Mr. Cooper provided a detailed description of the physical appearance of Frank Davis's daughter. When Mr. Cooper's description of Mr. Davis's daughter was compared to R.O.'s description of the girl with whom he was supposedly left alone, the two descriptions were so vastly different that the API was able to, and did, immediately determine that R.O. had fabricated the story, and the matter was closed without a formal investigation. The same API conducted an investigation of R.O.'s second story that he was left in Mr. Davis's car with a non-verbal vulnerable adult while Mr. Davis went into a bank. However, the API did not mention this story when he spoke with Mr. Cooper, nor did the API inform anyone from HIOTW that he was conducting a formal investigation. In conducting his investigation, the API spoke with R.O., twice with Mr. Davis, and with O.J. Bennett, another owner of HIOTW. HIOTW initially learned of R.O.'s story about the bank trip by a phone call from R.O.'s waiver support coordinator. Mr. Bennett immediately investigated the matter, speaking with Mr. Davis and also with the bank manager who was present and had personally observed the events that day. Mr. Bennett's report from his investigation was that when Mr. Davis drove up to the bank with R.O., he left R.O. in the car only to walk about nine feet from the car to the bank's glass entrance area. Mr. Davis signaled to a bank employee who came to the door. Mr. Davis told the employee he wanted to set up an account to make direct deposits of his paycheck. When Mr. Davis was told he would have to come into the bank and it would take a few minutes, Mr. Davis went back to the car for R.O. and brought him into the bank to wait while Mr. Davis set up the account. R.O. remained in Mr. Davis's sight at all times. Based on Mr. Bennett's report, which he reviewed with Mr. Cooper, HIOTW determined an unusual incident report (UIR) was not required, because there was no reason to suspect neglect of R.O. Several weeks later, when HIOTW learned from an APD employee that DCF was conducting a formal investigation, HIOTW submitted a UIR that set forth the details of Mr. Bennett's investigation and concluded that R.O. had been in Mr. Davis's sight and adequately supervised at all times. The APD Area 14 administrator confirmed in her testimony that if the facts were as Mr. Bennett found them to be in his investigation, there would not have been inadequate supervision, and there would have been no reason to submit a UIR. Of greatest significance with regard to R.O.'s story about the bank incident, the API determined that R.O. had lied about being left with a non-verbal vulnerable adult. Instead, the API found that Mr. Davis drove to a bank with R.O., and no one else, in the car. The DCF investigator's report summarized the differing versions of events told to him by R.O. and by Mr. Davis. R.O.'s version was that Mr. Davis left him in the car for the whole time that he went into the bank. Of course, R.O. also said that he was left with another adult, and that was not true. Therefore, R.O.'s statement to the DCF investigator could not be considered credible or reliable. According to the DCF investigator, Mr. Davis told him that he left R.O. alone in the car to go into the bank, but came back out of the bank to get R.O., who he then brought into the bank to wait while he conducted his business. However, Mr. Davis testified that he only told the DCF investigator that he walked up to the bank while R.O. was in the car. Mr. Davis's version of what happened and what he told the DCF investigator is more credible than the DCF investigator's report of what Mr. Davis told him. Mr. Davis's version was corroborated by the hearsay account of the bank manager, who told Mr. Bennett that Mr. Davis brought R.O. in the bank with him, only having left R.O. alone to walk up to the bank entrance. The bank manager confirmed Mr. Davis's testimony that R.O. was in Mr. Davis's sight at all times. In crediting Mr. Davis's version of events, corroborated by the bank manager, the undersigned finds it significant that Mr. Bennett told the DCF investigator about the bank manager eyewitness, and Mr. Bennett was under the impression that the DCF investigator would follow up by calling the bank manager. But the DCF investigator did not attempt to interview anyone at the bank, despite the fact that persons at the bank would have been the only other eyewitnesses besides Mr. Davis, who had a self-interest in the incident, and R.O., the habitual liar whose other story about Mr. Davis had been proven false. Petitioner did not undertake its own investigation of the facts, either at the time of the incident or at the time it was considering whether to rely on the incident as grounds to, in effect, revoke two of HIOTW's group home licenses. Instead, according to the area administrator for APD Area 14, Petitioner simply relied on the DCF investigation report. Indeed, the area administrator did not even seem to understand the DCF report, because at the hearing, she was adamant in her belief that DCF confirmed the allegation that Mr. Davis left R.O. in a car with a vulnerable non-verbal adult group home resident. The area administrator conveyed her misimpression to the central office in discussions to consider whether to non-renew two HIOTW group home licenses based on this incident. Ultimately at hearing, the area administrator conceded that she was improperly interpreting the DCF report, thinking that the allegation portion of the report contained the actual DCF findings. Even so, she steadfastly (and erroneously) asserted that she did not give any false information to the central office regarding HIOTW.3/ In addition to the misimpression conveyed about the R.O. incident, the area administrator testified that she had an employee convey numerous reports of allegations or suspicions of HIOTW improprieties to the central office in a single packet for the purpose of a decision on whether to renew the two HIOTW group home licenses. The area administrator explained other information about allegations and suspicions were sent in the same package so that the central office could also consider whether to terminate HIOTW's Medicaid waiver provider agreement at the same time. However, she admitted that the whole packet of material was sent for the purpose of review and a decision on whether to non-renew HIOTW's two group home licenses. As such, it would be difficult to ignore the extraneous allegations when making decisions regarding the license renewal applications, "[o]f course, you have all of that in your mind[.]" The actual transmittal package to the central office was not produced, apparently because it was sent by electronic mail, and there were some APD email system problems that got in the way of producing the email transmittal package. Nonetheless, the area administrator's description of what she believes was sent in a single package to the central office was sufficient to paint the picture of a litany of negative missives regarding HIOTW, intended, in part, to support the area administrator's recommendation to deny license renewal.4/ Petitioner did not allege in the administrative complaints and did not prove at the hearing that HIOTW itself was blameworthy for the R.O. incident. The APD Area 14 administrator testified that in recommending non-renewal of the two HIOTW group home licenses, a significant factor that she took into account was that HIOTW failed to promptly submit a UIR to report the R.O. incident. The facts found with respect to the R.O. incident do not demonstrate that a UIR was required. Moreover, HIOTW was not charged, in either administrative complaint, with a violation of its UIR reporting obligations. The DCF incident report concluded with a verified finding of inadequate supervision. The DCF investigator testified that it was his finding that "[p]rimarily, Mr. Davis was responsible for the inadequate supervision" of R.O. When asked whether HIOTW was also responsible as Mr. Davis's employer, the investigator said, "being his employer, and trainer, yes." However, neither the DCF investigator, nor Petitioner, presented any evidence to suggest that HIOTW was negligent in its hiring, training, or supervision of its companion care employees, generally, or Mr. Davis, in particular. Nor was there any evidence that HIOTW failed to appropriately respond to the R.O. incident once it was made aware of the incident. The DCF incident report found that Mr. Davis was an appropriately screened employee with no adverse history. Petitioner presented no evidence to the contrary. Both the DCF investigator and the area administrator for APD Area 14 concluded that HIOTW took appropriate action regarding the R.O. incident, by removing Mr. Davis from serving as R.O.'s companion and by putting Mr. Davis through additional "zero-tolerance" training. Mr. Davis's employment was terminated shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to the R.O. incident. Although the DCF incident report verified a finding of inadequate supervision, the report concluded that the overall risk associated with the finding was low because of appropriate corrective action taken by HIOTW.5/ The area administrator for APD Area 14 candidly admitted at the final hearing that HIOTW handled the R.O. incident appropriately and took corrective action that was deemed sufficient by APD and alleviated any health and safety concerns. Inexplicably, she continued to support the charges in the two denial letters, which alleged that the R.O. incident "threatened the health, safety, and well being of the applicant's residents," because R.O., with his history of being sexually abusive, had allegedly been left alone with a vulnerable, non-verbal adult group home resident. Since the R.O. incident did not involve any HIOTW group home residents, but rather, involved non-residential services provided under HIOTW's companion care license, one would expect that if licensure disciplinary action was warranted against HIOTW at all for this incident, it would have been initiated by AHCA as the licensing agency for companion care services. No evidence was presented that AHCA took any disciplinary action against HIOTW's companion care license. Instead, the evidence established that HIOTW's companion care license remained in good standing as of the final hearing, more than one and one-half years after the R.O. incident. Notwithstanding APD's knowledge in June 2010 of the DCF report and findings regarding the R.O. incident, APD proceeded to renew annual licenses for the period of October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011, for two other HIOTW group homes--Pace's Trail Group Home and Hampton Group Home. The license certificates state that the facilities comply with the licensure rules of APD. No evidence was presented that APD issued administrative complaints seeking to revoke these group homes' licenses; however, the area administrator made clear that she did not intend to renew any licenses for any HIOTW group homes in the future. Second Alleged Incident (on or about September 29, 2010) The facts regarding the second alleged incident involving HIOTW employee Donyell Goodman, were not disputed. At the time of the incident, Ms. Goodman had been employed by HIOTW for three years, with a very good, unblemished employee record. On the day in question, she was serving as a van driver to transport several HIOTW companion care clients to various sites within the local community. E.K. was one of those clients receiving companion care services that day; E.K. also was a resident of HIOTW's Lake Miriam Group Home. E.K. is developmentally disabled due to his diagnosis of mental retardation. Ms. Goodman stopped to let off one client, and she watched the client walk to the appropriate destination and go inside. She then resumed driving. When she had driven for about five minutes, she glanced in her rear view mirror and realized that E.K. was not there. Ms. Goodman immediately called LaDonna Bennett, the third owner of HIOTW, to report that E.K. must have snuck out of the van at her last stop, and she was going back to find him. Ms. Bennett also headed over to where Ms. Goodman said she had stopped, to assist. When Ms. Goodman returned to the site of her last stop, she found E.K. there, inside the corner store. E.K. was fine and returned to the van without incident. E.K. apparently admitted to sneaking out of the van, saying he just wanted some fresh air. The entire incident spanned about ten minutes. Ms. Bennett and Ms. Goodman both immediately prepared and submitted UIRs to report the incident. Ms. Goodman received a written reprimand in her HIOTW personnel file and was suspended for several days. When she resumed work, she underwent additional training, was removed from the van driver position, and reassigned to the "third shift" with no direct interaction with residents. The UIR reports triggered a DCF investigation. The AIP who conducted the investigation confirmed the facts that were set forth in the two UIRs. The AIP's investigation included an assessment of E.K. at the Lake Miriam Group Home where E.K. was a resident. The DCF incident report concluded as follows: Victim Safety Factors Implications: No implications for the [victim's] safety. [Perpetrator] Factors Implications: Based on the informaiton [sic] rec'd, API has determined the [adult perpetrator] to pose no threat to the [victim]. No implication [sic] for the [victim's] safety. Facility Factors Implications: Based on the [victim] to the grouphome [sic], API has determined the [victim] to not be at any risk. The API found that the overall safety assessment was low; however, based on the UIRs and interviews with Ms. Goodman and Ms. Bennett, the incident report concluded with a verified finding of inadequate supervision. The API who conducted the investigation testified at hearing and confirmed that the inadequate supervision finding was directed to Ms. Goodman. When asked if HIOTW was also responsible because it was Ms. Goodman's employer, the API said he did not know and could not answer that question. Petitioner did not allege in the administrative complaints, and did not prove at the hearing, that HIOTW itself was blameworthy for the E.K. incident. Neither the DCF investigator, nor Petitioner, offered any evidence that HIOTW had negligently hired, trained, or supervised its employees, including Ms. Goodman in particular. Both the DCF investigator and the APD Area 14 area administrator agreed that HIOTW acted appropriately in response to the E.K. incident to alleviate any concerns about health and safety, by imposing appropriate discipline against Ms. Goodman for her lapse that caused the incident, and by taking steps to ensure no reoccurrence of the incident. In 2011, well after APD had knowledge of the DCF reports and findings on both the R.O. and E.K. incidents, APD issued a series of temporary or conditional licenses to both Lake Miriam and Timbergreen during the license renewal process to give HIOTW time to respond to certain identified omissions in the renewal applications, such as dental records, fire inspection reports, and the like. The temporary and conditional license certificates issued in February and March 2011 state on their face that the facilities comply with the licensure rules of APD. According to the APD Area 14 administrator, each of the DCF reports on the R.O. and E.K. incidents resulted in "a verified abuse finding." The area administrator testified that any DCF report resulting in a verified abuse finding is classified as a Class I offense, which is the most serious class of offenses and is sufficient, without more, to give APD legal authority to deny licensure or renewal of a license to a licensed applicant named in the report. Yet, despite the verified finding regarding the R.O. incident, Petitioner did not deny license renewal applications for other HIOTW group homes. Despite the verified findings in both the R.O. and E.K. incidents, Petitioner issued temporary and conditional licenses to Timbergreen and Lake Miriam during the license renewal process. Thus, Petitioner has not exercised its discretion consistently in dealing with HIOTW. Petitioner has not exercised its discretion consistently in contexts far more egregious than the two incidents charged here. For example, Petitioner acknowledged that a recent incident of abuse and neglect, resulting in the death of a group home resident, did not trigger action by Petitioner to take away all of the group home licenses held by the licensee. Instead, Petitioner only acted to suspend the license of the specific group home where the deceased resident had resided. Petitioner did not attribute this very serious incident to all facilities licensed by the same entity. It would be unreasonable for APD to automatically, without discretion, equate all verified findings--whether of abuse or neglect, whether deemed low risk or high risk, whether risk of death or imminent bodily injury was found or not found. A protracted period of abuse or neglect that actually causes death of a group home resident is on a different plane, in terms of seriousness, from a brief employee lapse in which an individual is not caught when he sneaks away, but is recovered without harm or incident ten minutes later. No explanation was offered by Petitioner as to why, in the more serious situation where a verified incident resulted in death, action was not taken to revoke all group home licenses held by the licensee, whereas here, two incidents verified as low risk situations by DCF (one of which was not proven at the hearing), would cause Petitioner to act more harshly.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, approving Respondent's applications to renew its annual licenses to operate Lake Miriam Group Home and Timbergreen Group Home and issuing standard licenses for one-year terms to those facilities. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 2012.
The Issue The issue at the final hearing was whether the Petitioners met the statutory criteria for licensure as a children's foster home.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioners, Paul and Patricia Burnette, were married in 1969 and have lived together continuously since that time. The Petitioners were previously licensed as foster home parents in the State of Florida and have had children placed in their home. During the summer of 1984, the Petitioners' became interested in adopting six (6) children, aged sixteen (16), fifteen (15), eleven (11), six (6), five (5), and four (4) years old. Because the parental rights of the natural mother had not been finally terminated, the Petitioners were advised by their case worker that they should apply for foster home care licensure. The case worker advised the Petitioners that if they were licensed for foster home care, they would be able to obtain custody of the children pending final termination of the parental rights of the natural mother. Thus, the Petitioners sought licensure to provide foster home care as a step toward ultimately adopting the six (6) children. By application dated November 1, 1984, the Petitioners, Paul and Patricia Burnette, applied for a license to provide foster-family care for children in accordance with the provisions of Section 409.175, Florida Statutes (1983). The application provided for Ms. Burnette to indicate whether or not she had been convicted for anything other than a minor traffic violation. Ms. Burnette did not indicate "yes" or "no" on that portion of the form. On October 4, 1983 Patricia Burnette was convicted in the County Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Orange County, Florida of the offense of petit theft. Ms. Burnette was tried by jury and was represented by counsel. She was adjudicated guilty and placed on six (6) months unsupervised probation. Ms. Burnette was further ordered to pay a fine of $150, $15 victims compensation, $7.50 surcharge and $14 court costs within 30 days. She was sentenced to serve ten (10) days in the Orange County jail, suspended on the condition that she complete ten (10) days of alternative community service beginning October 15, 1983. Ms. Burnette was further ordered not to go onto the premises of Albertson's located at 2801 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. Ms. Burnette was represented at trial by Leo A. Jackson, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Jackson informed Patricia Burnette that the judge had withheld adjudication. Mr. Jackson explained to Ms. Burnette that because the judge had withheld adjudication, she was not convicted of the crime. Based on the legal advice received from Mr. Jackson, Ms. Burnette believed that she had not been convicted of the offense of petit larceny. A medical history form was also included as a part of the application for licensure as a children's foster home. On the medical history form, Ms. Burnette responded "no" to the question of whether or not she had or had ever had any back pain. Prior to licensure as a children's foster home, the applicant's are required to be examined by a physician. The physician is required to complete a form entitled "Physicians Report on Adoption Applicants." As a part of completing the form, the physician requests information from the applicant concerning the applicants medical history or previous illnesses. Ms. Burnette was examined by Dr. Din On-Sun, D.O. on October 5, 1984. During the examination, Ms. Burnette did not indicate any prior back pain or any other problems related to her back. On November 10, 1978, Patricia Burnette was involved in an industrial accident and injured her back. Ms. Burnette was paid temporary total disability benefits for a period of 1,200 days and sustained a 3% permanent impairment as a result of the accident. As a result of her injury, Ms. Burnette was on crutches for two (2) years and was told that she would never walk again. Ms. Burnette occasionally still suffers from back pain and must take pain medication. Because of her back injury, Ms. Burnette did not·perform the community service which was ordered as a result of her conviction for petit theft in October 1983. From October 1983 through September 1984, Ms. Burnette continued to advise Ms. Sue Rash (the Alternative Service Coordinator responsible for arranging her community service) that she was unable to perform any community service because she was having considerable trouble with her back and needed back surgery but could not afford it. In September of 1984, MS. Rash arranged a special assignment for MS. Burnette to work approximately 2 hours per day at the Sand Lake Treatment Plant Laboratory washing glassware and doing "light cleaning up." Ms. Burnette told MS. Rash that she wanted to talk to her doctor before she agreed to do any community service. On September 18, 1984, Ms. Burnette's physician advised Ms. Rash that he didn't think that Ms. Burnette could stand long enough to wash glassware and do clean-up work at the Sand Lake Treatment Plant Laboratory. On October 13, 1984, Ms. Rash sent a letter to the judge who had originally ordered Ms. Burnette to perform the community service. Ms. Rash explained to the judge that Ms. Burnette was still unable to perform her community service and recommended that a different sentence be considered for Ms. Burnette in lieu of community service. At that point, Ms. Rash closed Ms. Burnette's file.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioners' present application for licensure as a children's foster home be VOIDED; and, Petitioners be allowed to submit a new application so that their eligibility for licensure as a children's foster home may be evaluated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services based on full and truthful responses to the inquiries contained therein. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of April, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Whitney, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 W. Robinson Street Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 N. Diane Holmes, Esquire 209 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 William "Pete" Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Huss, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioners, Kim and Coby Lantz, should be granted a license as a family foster home.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating family foster homes. Petitioners are applicants for a family foster home license. In February 2004, Petitioners initially sought to adopt a child, but, subsequently, changed the application to provide foster care for children. As part of the process, Petitioners attended an orientation conducted by Respondent's family services counselor and completed a screening questionnaire. As part of the application process, applicants are required to complete the Model Approach for Parenting (MAP) training, which includes classes to better prepare prospective foster and adoptive parents for the placement of children in their homes. The purpose is to ensure, prior to placement, that prospective parents work effectively as a team with each other and with Respondent. It is also important that they know and understand their rights and obligations that a stable environment be created for the children. As part of the MAP training and evaluation, prospective foster parents are required to complete a thorough background and history form. They are asked to give a complete life history, including prior relationships, marriages, customs, and culture. Both Petitioners completed the form. Petitioner Coby Lantz has been very supportive of his wife's desire to obtain a family foster home license and to provide care for foster children. He provided sufficient information in order for Respondent to complete his portion of the family assessment. Petitioner Coby Lantz completed the MAP training during this period. Petitioner Kim Lantz was given credit for completing the MAP training while married to her second husband, Darrell Palmer. Petitioner Kim Lantz completed the Adult's Personal Profile (for prospective mothers), consisting of 17 pages, plus a five-page, hand-written "Life Story." On page five of the profile, she was specifically asked to complete information on previous intimate relationships and former marriages. Petitioner Kim Lantz listed only one former marriage. She indicated she was married to Darrell Palmer from November 18, 2000, until his death on September 12, 2001. However, Petitioner Kim Lantz was, in fact, married to Robert D. Haynes in June 1991, separated two years later, and the final decree of divorce was entered on October 10, 1995. Petitioner Kim Lantz's explanation of this omission, while testifying at the hearing, was that she and her first husband married shortly after college. She stated, "[i]t was a high school sweetheart thing . . . he was not abusive to me. He did drink. We just grew apart. We divorced. That was it. It was like a guy I dated. He's not really anything to comment about. I moved on " These responses, along with other parts of her testimony, indicate that Petitioner Kim Lantz tends to suppress unpleasant memories from her past and to not deal with them effectively. Also, Petitioner Kim Lantz has not given a credible explanation of her complete omission of any reference to Haynes in her profile or "Life Story." In addition, it was only with excessive prodding that Petitioner produced a Certificate of Divorce from Haynes. These omissions and vague explanations have prevented Respondent from completing a thorough family assessment as required by Florida law. Petitioner Kim Lantz's second marriage to Darrell Palmer ended tragically on November 12, 2001. She was present with her husband in their apartment when local law enforcement came to their door. The law enforcement officers were seeking to determine the origin of bomb threats made to a local Dillard's department store. Apparently, they wanted to interview her, who was employed there at the time, and Palmer, a former employee. When Palmer, who was preparing a meal in the kitchen, opened the door with a kitchen knife in his hands, he was shot and killed by law enforcement. Petitioner was emotionally devastated by this event. At her parents urging, she returned to their home in upstate New York, where she received love and support from her family and her church. Petitioner Kim Lantz testified that she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and received mental health counseling for two years and, also, received medication for this condition. However, Petitioners have provided only sketchy information concerning her current mental health status. While still in New York, Petitioners met at a church function, dated, and married and eventually moved to Cocoa, Florida. During the course of Respondent's family assessment, it was determined, in late March 2005, that Petitioner Kim Lantz was terminated at her place of employment, a daycare facility, on February 28, 2005. She failed to report this event and attempted to withhold this fact from Respondent. Her explanation to Respondent's investigator and her testimony at the hearing is not credible and amounts to a willful or intentional misstatement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioners, Kim and Coby Lantz's application for a family foster home license be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Kim Lantz Coby Lantz 6983 Dahlia Drive Cocoa, Florida 32927 Gregory Venz, 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 Whether Rules 7D-30.04, 7D-30.06, 7D-31.01(2), 7D-31,01(4), 7D-31.01(5), 7D-31.01(12), 7D-32.01 and 7D-32.02, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority and are arbitrary and capricious?
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact were stipulated to and are hereby adopted: The following is a Florida non-profit corporation, whose address is 115 N. Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The FMHA is organized and maintained for the benefit of its members, which includes approximately 950 mobile home park owners and operators. A substantial portion of these members own or operate parks which contain 10 or more lots and therefore are subject to regulation by the Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Department of Business Regulation. The Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Department of Business Regulation is delegated the authority pursuant to Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, to regulate mobile home parks, including the powers to enforce and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Chapter and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, including the authority to impose a civil penalty against a mobile home park owner for any violation of the Chapter, or a rule or regulation of the Division. Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, was enacted by the Florida Legislature as Chapter 84-80, was signed by the Governor and filed in the office of the Secretary of State on June 4, 1984. Rules 7D-30, 7D-31, and 7D-32, Florida Administrative Code, are rules of the Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, Department of Business Regulation, which were properly adopted in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is a trade association the members of which are engaged in business in the mobile home industry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner has members who are mobile home manufacturers, retailers, equipment suppliers and servicers, owners and operators of mobile-home rental parks, developers of mobile home parks and subdivisions, insurance firms and lending institutions. The Petitioner has 1,020 members who develop mobile home parks and subdivisions or are owners and operators of mobile home rental parks. As stipulated to by the parties, approximately 950 of the Petitioner's members are owners and operators of mobile home rental parks. The Petitioner's members are involved in the rental of between 300,000 and 350,000 mobile home spaces. A substantial number of the Petitioner's members are subject to regulation by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), the "Florida Mobile Home Act." In July of 1984, subsequent to the effective date of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), the Bureau of Mobile Homes was created as a part of the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes. Dr. Faye Mayberry has been, and continues to be, the Chief of the Bureau of Mobile Homes. Following the enactment of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), the Bureau of Mobile Homes concluded that there was a need to clarify certain portions of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes (1985), and a need to establish procedures necessary for the filing of prospectuses and other documents. Therefore, the Bureau initiated a process to determine what rules needed to be adopted. The Bureau also received numerous inquiries from mobile home owners and mobile home park owners concerning Chapter 723. The Bureau first looked at Chapter 723 in-house and looked at the nature of inquiries it had received and then drafted a conceptual approach to part of the rules. The conceptual draft, at the invitation of the Bureau, was reviewed by representatives of the Petitioner and the Intervenor. A meeting was held with the Respondent to discuss the conceptual approach. The Respondent left the meeting with the impression that the conceptual approach was not that far off. Following its discussions of the conceptual approach with the Petitioner and Intervenor, the Respondent drafted rules pursuant to Chapter 723. Four workshops, in three locations in Florida, were conducted to receive public input on the draft rules. Advance notice of the workshops was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Representatives of the Petitioner had notice of, and participated in, the workshops. Subsequent to the public workshops, in October of 1934, the Respondent published proposed rules under Chapters 7D-30 and 7D-31, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. In November of 1984, the Respondent published proposed rules under Chapter 7D-32. After publication of the proposed rules in the Florida Administrative Weekly, requests for a public hearing were received by the Respondent and public hearings were held. Representatives of the Petitioner attended these hearings and had an opportunity to provide input on the content of the proposed rules. Revisions were made to the proposed rules based upon suggestions from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee and comments made by the public during the hearings held by the Respondent. The revisions were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly in January of 1985. As revised, the rules contained in Chapters 7D-30 and 7D-31, Florida Administrative Code, became effective on January 10, 1985. The rules contained in Chapter 7D-32. Florida Administrative Code, became effective on February 6, 1085. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee did not file any challenge to the rules after they became effective. A substantial amount of input and work went into adopting Chapters 7D-30, 7D-31 and 7D-39, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner had notice of the promulgation of the rules at issue and has been involved in the development and distribution of information it believed was necessary to assist its members in complying with the requirements of Chapter 723. The Petitioner has distributed memoranda, conducted seminars, distributed prospectuses and communicated with representatives of the Respondent in an effort to assist its members in complying with the requirements of Chapter 723. The Petitioner provided definitions of terms for use in prospectuses and notices required by Chapter 723 and for use in complying with the Respondent's rules. The Petitioner has attempted to assist its members in preparing a prospectus which could be filed with the Respondent and would meet the requirements of Chapter 723. Toward this end, the Petitioner prepared a sample or model prospectus and conducted a seminar on the model prospectus on December 17, 1984. The seminar was conducted in Orlando, Florida, and was attended by over 600 people. In the model prospectus the Petitioner provided three alternative methods of providing for future rental increases to be included in a prospectus. The model prospectus discussed at the December 17, 1984 seminar was for use by those mobile home parks with 100 or more rental spaces. The Petitioner also prepared a model prospectus for mobile home parks with 26 to 99 rental spaces which it distributed in June of 1985. This model prospectus was sent to all members of the Petitioner. A large number of the Petitioner's members used the model prospectus prepared by the Petitioner. Information provided to members by the Petitioner was developed by the Petitioner based in part upon its discussions with the staff of the Respondent. The Petitioner received questions from its members concerning certain aspects of the Respondent's rules and Chapter 723 which the Petitioner attempted to answer. A substantial number of the Petitioner's members advertise their mobile home parks. Mr. Neil Kullman is a member of the Petitioner and is the President of Florida Leisure Communities. Florida Leisure Communities owns and operates 3 mobile home parks in Florida. Florida Leisure Communities waits for the Respondent to approve advertising materials it files with the Respondent because it has decided that it does not want to risk using an advertisement which may be found to be defective by the Respondent. Florida Leisure Communities does not wait for approval of its advertisements by the Respondent because it believes that it is required to do so by the Respondent's rules. Time delays have been experienced in getting advertisements approved. A substantial number of the Petitioner's members have rental agreements in existence at mobile homes parks which have anniversary dates or renewal dates which would allow increases in rent. Most of the rental agreements have renewal dates or anniversary dates of July 1 or January 1. The Petitioner provided information to its members in March of 1985 and August of 1985 concerning the Petitioner's understanding of what constitutes an effective notice of lot rental increase. In explaining how members can provide a concise explanation of the reason for a proposed lot rental increase, the Petitioner told its members the following in a memorandum distributed in March of 1985: You need only to provide a concise explanation of the reason for the proposed change. Be brief! You should only include a list of factors (for rent increases), or a short plain statement for the change in services or rules or regulations. Important! As for rent increases, the rule limits the factors you may consider to those specifically identified in the prospectus. If the homeowners go to mediation or arbitration, or to court, then only those factors identified in the prospectus can be used to justify the reasonableness of the increase. Also, you should only place on the notice of increase the category of factor used to determine the rent increase level. For example: Operating costs; Prevailing market rent; Prevailing economic conditions; or Consumer Price Index (CPI). Be sure to list only those factors which are necessary to fully justify the rent increase. In August of 1985 the Petitioner provided the following guidance to its members with respect to how to provide a concise explanation of the reason for a lot rental increase: 4. You need only to provide a concise explanation of the reason for the proposed increase. Be brief! You should only include a list of factors, or a short plain statement of the reason or reasons for the increase. For example, a response might be: "The reasons for the increase are increased operating costs, prevailing market rent, and prevailing economic [sic] conditions, as set forth in the prospectus." You need not to go [sic] into great detail as to the specific costs which may have increased during the course of the year which you may want to take into consideration, or do you need to explain what is intended to mean [sic] by prevailing market rent or prevailing economic conditions. You need only to include a concise explanation of the reasons for the increase. The recommendation of the Petitioner to its members concerning how to provide a concise explanation of an increase in lot rental was basically that the member refer to factors which might cause a rental increase as provided in the member's prospectus. In the model prospectus recommended by the Petitioner to its members in June of 1985, the Petitioner recommended that the following explanation of the manner in which lot rental could be increased should be used by its members: is as follows: Increase in Lot Rental The manner in which lot rental will be increased, Definitions. As used in this Section VIII: "Lot rental" means all sums paid or to be paid by the mobile home owner in consideration of leasing or renting a mobile home lot or lots in the Park. Such sums include any and all rents, special use fees, pass-through charges, installation and set-up charges, and other fees, charges and assessments imposed by the Owner. "Special use fees" mean those separately itemized amounts for specific services or privileges which are charged in addition to rent, including, but not limited to, such charges as guest fees, pet fees and entrance fees. "Pass-through charges" are defined as those amounts, other than special use fees, which are itemized and charged separately from the rent and which represent the mobile home owner's share of costs charged to the Park Owner by any state or local government or utility company. Notice of Increase. The mobile home owner shall be notified of any increase in the lot rental at least 90 days prior to the effective date of such increase. Lot Rental-Increases. General. The lot rental and each of the categories of charges current Iv or hereafter comprising a part of the lot rental are subject to periodic increases by the Owner. However, except for increases resulting from the imposition of pass-through charges, the lot rental will not be increased more frequently than annually, except for initial tenancies which commence after the beginning of the annual rental term. Factors Affecting Increases. Factors which may affect the level of increases in lot rental are as follows: Increased costs, which refers to any increases experienced by the Owner since the delivery of notice of the last increase in the lot rental in the total costs arising out of the ownership, operation and management of the Park. Prevailing Market Rent--Refers to the lot rental imposed in mobile home parks comparable to this Park, or the lot rental willingly paid from time to time by new residents of this Park. A park will be deemed comparable if it is located in the same general vicinity as this Park, and offers similar densities, amenities and services. Prevailing Economic Conditions--are intended to refer to those factors which bear on the economic viability of a real estate investment and which would be considered by a prudent businessman in establishing the base rent and other charges or any increase in the amount thereof. These factors may include: the costs attendant to the replacement of this Park in the economic environment existing at the time of any rental increase, including land acquisition costs, construction costs, and losses associated with the operation of a park prior to full occupancy, and the level at which the lot rental must be established in order that the Park Owner will realize a reasonable return on the costs referred to in this clause (1); the level of interest rates and other financing charges associated with construction, interim and permanent financing; (3) the availability of alternative forms of real estate investment capital; (4) the levels of the Consumer Price Index, defined as the United States Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average--All Urban Consumers, 1967 100, or, in the event of the discontinuation of publication of the Consumer Price Index, then an alternative index which has been reasonably related to the Consumer Price Index in evaluating economic conditions, and which has been, or can reasonably be expected to be, generally accepted as a replacement index for the Consumer Price Index; (5) the level at which the lot rental must be established in order that the Owner will realize a reasonable return on the "Owners's Equity"; for this purpose, the "Owner's Equity" refers to the fair market value of the Park from time to time, less existing mortgage indebtedness; (6) other economic factors which might reasonably be expected to affect-either the value of the Park, the rate of return available to the Owner of the Park at the existing level of rent, the present value of the real estate investment in the then current economic conditions, and which would be taken into consideration by a prudent businessman in considering the amount of rental increase required in the Park in order -to realize a rate of return similar to other at risk real estate ventures from the then current value of the Park. To the extent permitted by law, the mobile home owner may also be required to bear, in the form of increases in the lot rental, the costs incurred by Owner in installing capital improvements or performing major repairs in the Park. Additional Considerations The reasons for the increase in lot rental or other fees and charges will be set forth in the notice of increase. Only those factors set forth in the notice will be relied upon by the Park Owner as justification for the rent increase. The Park Owner reserves the right to amend this Prospectus or any Exhibit thereto from time to time to the extent permitted by law to conform with changes in relevant statutory provisions or changes in relevant rules of the Department of Business Regulation, or any other agency having jurisdiction over the operation of this mobile home park. An increase in one or more of the above- described factors may result in an increase in the mobile home owner's rent or other charges. Tenants assuming the remaining portion of a tenancy as prescribed by Section 723.059(3), F.S., are hereby notified that upon the expiration of the assumed tenancy, the Park Owner expressly reserves the right to increase lot rental amount in an amount deemed appropriate by the Park Owner with such increase being imposed in the manner disclosed in the Prospectus delivered to the initial recipient. A number of the Petitioner's members used the notice of lot rental increase recommended by the Petitioner and the portion of the prospectus quoted in finding of fact 33. The Respondent advised some of the Petitioner's members that the notice recommended by the Petitioner was deficient under the Respondent's rules. The notice was deficient because the Respondent determined that the notice did not provide a concise explanation of the reason for a lot rental increase. The notice used by several members of the Petitioner stated that the reason for the increase was "prevailing market conditions and economic conditions." The Respondent notified members that used this explanation that it was deficient. The Respondent also told those members that "the explanation must include the specific changes in the factors described in the prospectus under prevailing market conditions and economic conditions which were the reasons for the change." The Petitioner challenged the Respondent's interpretation of its rules concerning notices in Leon County Circuit Court. The Court advised the parties to work things out following a preliminary injunction hearing. Representatives of the Petitioner and the Respondent met and discussed the problem with the Petitioner's notice and the Respondent subsequently indicated that several examples of a concise explanation for lot rental increases proposed by the Petitioner were acceptable. The method of increasing rent provided in existing rental agreements at various mobile home parks varies. Because existing tenants have different anniversary dates or renewal dates, if notice of a lot rental increase affecting some tenants is given to all tenants of a park, it is more costly to the park owner. It is possible, however, to mail one notice of rental increase to all tenants of a park at the beginning of each year. Florida Leisure Communities has filed a prospectus for all three of its mobile home parks in Florida. The prospectuses have been approved by the Respondent. At the Colonnades, a Florida Leisure Communities park, 156 lots have been completed and 19 of those lots have been occupied. Improvements to be made by Florida Leisure Communities are specified in the prospectus for the parks. In order to keep pace with market conditions and provide different improvements, a new prospectus has to be filed with the Respondent. At Brittany Estates, another Florida Leisure Communities park, after a prospectus had been distributed to all tenants, a tornado destroyed 50 mobile homes. Most of the tenants of the 50 homes voluntarily terminated their leases. Mr. Bernie Covington is vice-president and director of the parks of Angeles Real Estate Management Company (hereinafter referred to as "Angeles"). Angeles owns and operates 13 mobile home parks in Florida. Angeles has filed a prospectus for Heritage Village, a 436 site park. The prospectus had not been approved or distributed as of the date of the hearing of these cases. Heritage Village owns and operates its own sewage treatment plant and water system. Heritage Village will be required, however, to tie into the County's water and sewage system at substantial costs. Existing leases with tenants of Heritage Village allow the park to pass the impact fees ($1,250.00 for sewage and $1,149.00 for water, per site) and the cost of tieing into the force main ($30,000.00 to $35,000.00) on to the tenants. The cost of tieing into the force main may not be passed on to the tenants under the Respondent's rules, however. Angeles has also filed a prospectus for Pleasant Living Mobile Home Park which has 218 tenants. The prospectus had not been approved or distributed as of the date off the final hearing of these cases. Angeles would now like to provide a secure area for storage of boats, RVs and cars and charge a fee for this service. The prospectus being reviewed by the Respondent, however, does not indicate that a secure area will be provided.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Berta Cabral and Cabral Adult Foster Home were certified by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to operate as an adult foster home. On October 2, 1985, Freda Aliber was released as a patient from Coral Gables Hospital and was placed in Cabral Adult Foster Home. When she arrived at the Cabral Adult Foster Home she had with her personal papers including bank statements for accounts which she held at Coral Gables Federal and at City National Bank. On October 3, 1985, Berta Cabral's daughter Odalys Ibarra telephoned Coral Gables Federal to advise that she would be coming to the bank that day with Freda Aliber. Later that same day Odalys Ibarra, Julie Ibarra, and Freda Aliber came to Coral Gables Federal at which time Odalys Ibarra attempted to have her name added to Aliber's bank account. Further, Odalys Ibarra made her requests of the bank personnel in Spanish although Freda Aliber does not understand Spanish. Bank employees refused to add Odalys Ibarra's name to Freda Aliber's account. On or about October 3, 1985, Odalys Ibarra telephoned City National Bank, identified herself as Berta Cabral's daughter, and asked a number of personal questions regarding Freda Aliber's account at that bank. Odalys Ibarra's attempts to gain access to Freda Aliber's personal funds were done with the full knowledge and consent of Berta Cabral. Freda Aliber did not understand what Berta Cabral, Odalys Ibarra, and Julie Ibarra were attempting to do and did not understand why she was taken to the bank.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Berta Cabral's certification as Cabral Adult Foster Home. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of July, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Berta Cabral Cabral Adult Foster Home 2331 N.W. 31 Street Miami, Florida 33142
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents' foster home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Respondents have been licensed by Petitioner to operate a foster home since August 1994. At all times material hereto, Mercedes and Topacio Hernandez were foster children who resided in Respondents' home. Mercedes was born on October 3, 1986, and Topacio was born on August 31, 1988. On March 1, 1996, Darlise Baron, a protective investigator for Petitioner, picked up Mercedes and Topacio from school and took them home. When she picked them up, they and their clothes were dirty. When they arrived at Respondents' home, Baron allowed the girls to play outside in the dirt while she waited for a Spanish-speaking police officer to arrive to assist her with her investigation. After Baron and the police officer entered Respondents' home, Baron inspected the kitchen area. The refrigerator contained "hardly any food", and the cabinets contained only a "couple of cans of vegetables." Respondent Ana Diaz explained to Baron that the girls received their breakfasts and lunches at school and the family had their evening meals catered. Baron noted that Mercedes was "average weight" and Topacio was "small for her weight". It is assumed from Baron's description that Topacio was overweight. Baron noticed a slide lock on the outside of the girls' bedroom door. The lock was the type where one merely raises the knob and slides the lock over. The lock was not a "dead bolt" lock. What Baron did not notice was that there were such slide locks on the outside of all the bedroom doors in Respondents' home. The purpose of the locks was to prevent Respondents' granddaughter from entering any of the bedrooms unattended. That toddler was the child of Respondents' daughter who also resided with Respondents. Baron determined that Mercedes and Topacio were not in immediate danger. She determined that the children did not need to be removed from Respondents' home. On March 4, 1996, Brenda Boston, a foster care unit supervisor for Petitioner, visited Respondents' home. She checked the sheets on the girls' bed: the top sheet was clean but the bottom sheet was soiled. In her view, the girls' bedroom was untidy because there were some packed boxes in the room. Boston checked the refrigerator and found it empty but there was a box of food in the freezer. The cupboards were also empty. Respondent Ana Diaz explained that their food was catered and showed Boston containers of warm food on the kitchen counter. There were no snacks available for the girls at that time. While Boston was there, she observed the interaction among Mercedes, Topacio, and Respondents and found it to be good. She determined that the foster children were not in any immediate danger and left them in Respondents' home. Lee C. Hickey is a social worker who has been the case manager for Mercedes and Topacio since December 1995. She sees the girls on a weekly basis, at home, at school, or in therapy. She has observed the interaction among them and the other students and the interaction among them and Respondent Ana Diaz and has found those interactions to be positive. Although she testified that there were no books in the Diaz foster home for the girls to read, she did not testify as to when that situation occurred and for how long that situation continued to exist. She did testify, however, that Topacio was in the second grade at the time and could not read. On March 26, 1996, Carol Rodriguez, a counselor employed by Petitioner, visited the Diaz foster home. She observed the children's room to be neat. Although she noticed the slide lock on the bedroom door, she did not question its presence. During that visit, Respondent Ana Diaz indicated that she was not happy with the Department and wanted Mercedes and Topacio removed from the home. On March 29, 1996, Rodriguez spoke with Respondent Ana Diaz who told her that Petitioner needed to remove the children from the Diaz home that day because Respondent Alejandro Diaz needed surgery on an emergency basis and they were leaving for Columbia the next day. Respondents did not lock Mercedes or Topacio in their bedroom for punishment, did not require them to clean the house in order to eat, did not keep them from eating meals as a family, and did not hit or threaten them. The children missed several therapy appointments when Respondent Ana Diaz was unable to transport them to therapy. They did receive therapy, however, on February 14, 1996, two days after their father died following a terminal illness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents not guilty and dismissing the charges filed against them. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Arthur Spiegel, Esquire 1800 Northwest Seventh Street Miami, Florida 33125 Richard Doran General Counsel 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Two, Room 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents' child- placing agency license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and monitoring child-placing agencies. The Center, whose address is 1602 East Third Avenue, Tampa, Florida, received its initial child-placing agency license from DCF in 2004. The license was renewed October 12, 2006. Susan Morgan has been the director of the Center since its inception. DCF contracts with HKI to provide community-based child welfare services in Hillsborough County. HKI contracts with Camelot Community Care for the performance of adoption related services. DCF received complaints about Respondent and issued an Administrative Complaint with the following categories of violations: A foster parent home study was finalized after only one home visit lasting half an hour. The home study document indicates four home consultations for that client. Files relating to clients were left in an unsecured environment at the Center with unauthorized persons having access to them. An adoptive home study was completed without a visit being made to the prospective adoptive parents' home. Respondent lost or misplaced paperwork from clients which contained confidential information. Respondent failed to timely provide foster parents with a copy of their foster parent licenses once the licenses were issued. Regarding the first violation, two home studies are required to finalize a foster parent home study. The subject family was provided a template for filling in information about their home. This is a reasonable means of gathering information about a family. The family was directed to fill in the template using the third person format (so that anyone reading the document might infer that someone other than the family had written the information). Morgan did not visit the home at issue, but did send her associate (Wendy Martinez) who conducted a brief 30 to 40-minute visit. The home study was signed by Morgan and dated March 13, 2007, some four or five weeks prior to Martinez's visit. The home study included the following table concerning visits and consultations: Contact Information Inquiry Date 01/05/06 Inquiry Home Visit 02/10/06 Initial Home Consultation 03/15/06 MAPP Graduation 02/26/06 2nd Home Consultation 04/02/06 Final Home Consultation 03/08/07 Date Application Signed 03/08/07 The table seems to indicate a single home visit on February 10, 2006, and three home "consultations" on later dates. Morgan says the date of the home visit is a typographical error; it should say April 18, 2006, i.e., the date of Martinez's visit. Morgan admits only one home visit was made, but says the home study was not final. Her testimony on that topic is not credible. The home study appears complete, has references to several home visits and/or consultations, and is signed by Morgan subsequent to the dates appearing in the aforementioned table. DCF considers the references to home consultations to be tantamount to home visits. Inasmuch as at least two home visits are required for a foster parent home study, this interpretation makes sense.1 A discussion of the differences, if any, between home visits and home studies follows. There was much testimony at the final hearing as to whether a home visit and a home study are the same thing. Each of the experienced social workers and managers who testified (other than Morgan) seemed to believe the two were synonymous. Even the two witnesses called by Respondent to address the issue opined that home visit and home consultation mean essentially the same thing. Respondent introduced definitions from The Social Worker's Dictionary, but there is nothing in those definitions to suggest they apply to foster care or adoption situations. None of the social workers who testified indicated they would rely on that source to define home visits versus consultations. The home study at issue appears to suggest that four home visits/consultations were conducted, when in fact only one (of the required two) was done. The second category of rule violation concerns unsecured client records. Files belonging to clients of child- placing agencies are extremely confidential in nature. Respondent moved into a new office in the Ybor City section of Tampa during September 2006. The office was shared with a company that specializes in estimating construction project costs. The estimating company had two employees, a receptionist and the owner of the company. The office was set up so that the receptionist was in the same room as Respondent's employee, Martinez. Morgan had a separate office for herself, and the owner of the estimating company had an office upstairs. The Ybor City office had been inspected by DCF in October 2006 and was found to be sufficient for its intended purposes. A client, Angela Ferguson, visited the Center in early April 2007. Morgan was not present when Ferguson arrived, but Martinez was there, as were employees from the other business. Martinez called Morgan on the client's behalf so that Morgan could come to the office. While waiting for Morgan, the client noticed 50 to 60 file folders lying around the office. Some of the files belonged to other clients whose names were visible to Ferguson. Some of the files were probably forms and other non- confidential documents. The client files were not locked in a cabinet or otherwise protected from persons using Respondent's office. On or about May 2, 2007, another client, Jennifer Moody, also visited the Center to get her file (so that she could transfer to another adoption agency). She walked into the office and found the estimating company's receptionist, but no one from the Center was there. The receptionist called Morgan because Moody wanted to wait for her to arrive. While waiting, Moody observed files lying around the office in plain view. When Ferguson expressed her concerns to DCF about the way files were being handled, a licensing specialist was sent out to investigate. DCF employee Melissa Leggett made an unannounced visit to the Center on May 16, 2007, at 10:00 in the morning. Martinez was in the office when Leggett arrived; Martinez called Morgan for Leggett, and Morgan arrived shortly thereafter. Leggett noticed confidential files lying around the office, including files for some clients who she personally knew. Leggett advised Morgan that the files would have to be protected by placing them in a locked file cabinet or locked room. Morgan agreed to remedy the situation and seems to have done so by the date of the final hearing. Files are now being protected from public scrutiny. Each employee of the estimating company has signed a Confidentiality Office Policy agreeing to keep all records of the Center confidential. The third category of violation concerned an adoptive home study for Moody (the same client who had visited the Center). The home study for this family was also sent in blank template form with instructions to fill it out using the third person. Moody filled out the form and sent it back to Morgan. In April 2006, Moody and her husband were scheduled to attend a meeting with prospective adoptee children at Splitsville, a Tampa bowling alley. In order to attend such meetings, prospective adoptive parents must have a home study completed in advance. This serves the purpose of making sure that such parents actually qualify as adoptive parents before they are exposed to the children. The home study for Moody and her husband was finished by Morgan in time for the Moodys to attend the Splitsville function. Although several home visits were scheduled, each of them was cancelled due to various circumstances. No home visit was ever made. However, the home study was completed and signed by Morgan with a recommendation that the family be approved to adopt. The recommendation section of the home study included as its basis: "Based on MAPP training, personal interviews, home consultations . . .". The home study contains a thorough description of the home, including the pool and yard, presumably based on details provided by the Moodys. Moody decided to terminate her relationship with Morgan and the Center after not hearing from Morgan during the period of July through November. As stated earlier herein, Moody picked up her file, which included the signed home study, from the Center. Morgan maintains the home study was still a "work in progress" at that time. However, it had already been signed and was dated April 18, 2006. (Moody was scheduled to attend the Splitsville event on April 22, 2007, and would have needed a completed home study in order to attend.) By Morgan's own admission, she was never in the home of Moody and did not "effectively or efficiently manage" that client's case. It was, as Morgan admitted, wrong to sign the home study without having visited the home. It appears the home study was finished so that the family could attend the MAPP event. The next category of violation had to do with lost or misplaced paperwork. A child placing agency must protect all information provided to it by clients so that confidentiality is maintained. LaClair and her husband submitted a large packet of information to Morgan as part of their attempt to adopt a child through the Center. The information was lost or misplaced by the Center on at least two (but possibly three) occasions. The submitted information contained extremely confidential information, including: marriage licenses, divorce decrees, birth certificates, social security numbers, military identification numbers, and insurance information. The last category of violation concerned failure by Respondent to timely provide licenses to approved foster parents. One of Respondent's clients, Barry Plesch, indicated a long interval between verbal approval and receipt of his paper license. However, he could not quantify the number of times nor specifically remember what dates he may have called Respondent to ask about the license. Another client, Brad Farber, made numerous requests for his license. When he expressed an urgent need for it, the license was produced forthwith. On May 17, 2007, Morgan met with representatives of HKI to discuss the Moody home study and the situation relating to confidential records. At that time, Morgan admitted to falsifying the Moody home study. Morgan acknowledged the gravity and severity of that mistake. She did explain that her office was undergoing reorganization at the time of Leggett's visit, which was the reason so many files were lying around the office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services upholding the revocation of Respondent's child-placing agency license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) properly denied the application for licensure renewal sought for the group home facility license held by Tracy Court Group Home, owned and operated by V-Agape, LLC.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the licensing and operation of foster care facilities, group home facilities, and residential habitation centers pursuant to section 20.197 and chapter 393, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this complaint, Respondent held foster or group home facility licenses issued by APD. The current group home license issued for V-Agape, LLC, located at 19103 Tracy Court, Lutz, Florida 33548, is owned by Tonya Nelson, the sole managing member. Respondent has contracted with APD to provide the residents with Medicaid waiver developmental disability residential habitation services. HCSO conducts investigations of reports of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and threats of harm to children on behalf of DCF. Investigations of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and threats of harm are initiated by reported incidents through the Florida Abuse Hotline. Karen Gonzalez is the supervisor of the Specialized Investigating Unit. She supervises the CPIs who perform the abuse hotline investigations. Ms. Gonzalez supervised Robert Hoon and Jennifer Campbell, both CPIs. A report was made to the Florida Abuse Hotline on January 24, 2014, that a minor female resident of Respondent’s Tracy Court Group Home sustained bruising and a red mark on the back of her hand from being struck on her hands by Tonya Nelson. The resident is non-verbal and intellectually disabled. The subsequent investigation by CPI Hoon, on behalf of DCF, was ultimately closed with verified indicators for physical injury upon the minor resident living in the Tracy Court Group Home, but did not identify the caregiver responsible. CPI Hoon reviewed and discussed the investigation with Supervisor Gonzalez before he prepared the Investigative Summary (IS). When conducting investigations, the CPI reviews the prior history of incidents reported on a group home and its owner/operator. In subsection “D. Prior Reports and Service Records Implications for Child Safety,” CPI Hoon reported that: There are prior reports on the facility that include concerns for physical discipline in the foster home and to her o[w]n children. There is a verified report in 2012 for physical injury and the aps [adult perpetrators] where [sic] Tonya Nelson and the aunt as it is unknown who caused the injuries. Ms. Gonzalez testified that prior reports are reviewed in conducting their investigations to determine whether a pattern of concern for the health and safety of the children placed in that home and for the caretakers caring for the children in the home exists. The CPIs utilize DCF Operating Procedure (CFOP) 175-28, Child Maltreatment Index, as a guideline in conducting their investigations. A “verified finding” is made when a preponderance of the credible evidence results in a determination that the specific harm or threat of harm was the result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. CPI Campbell explained the application of CFOP during an investigation: [I]t . . . breaks down the different maltreatments that are investigated under the umbrella of abuse, neglect, and abandonment, and it provides a guideline for the definitions of what the different maltreatments are, and the different types of supporting evidence and documents that may be needed when supporting a maltreatment when the investigator comes up with the findings. It’s basically a guideline for investigations, because when a report comes in it may not be just one maltreatment, there may be a number of different maltreatments; or an investigator may identify a maltreatment during the course of an investigation, and so this provides a guideline for the investigator. On May 20, 2014, a report was made to the Florida Abuse Hotline about a minor resident of Respondent’s Tracy Court Group Home. An investigation was commenced concerning unexplained bruises observed on the resident, a vulnerable minor. CPI Campbell completed the investigation and prepared the IS. She discussed the verified findings with Supervisor Gonzalez. CPI Campbell is an experienced investigator, having had 11 years of service with HCSO following five years’ experience as a CPI in Michigan. The report of May 20, 2014, was a “Supplemental” report since, according to Supervisor Gonzalez, it came in right after the initial risk sequence. Rather than creating an entire new report, this one became supplemental to the prior one. The IS stated that the resident had a large bruise on her left thigh and bruises on her left arm and the back of her leg. Ms. Nelson was not able to explain how the minor resident sustained the bruises on her leg and arm. CPI Campbell became involved with Ms. Nelson and the investigation of the group home when Supervisor Gonzalez gave her the task of completing the investigation initiated by CPI Krisita Edwards. At the time CPI Campbell took over the investigation, CPI Edwards had been assigned to other duties. CPI Campbell explained that it was not unusual for a second investigator to complete work begun by another since all their notes are kept on a central database known as the Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN), where all contacts are noted, as well as the investigative summary. CPIs Edwards and Campbell collaborated on the investigation in this case. CPI Edwards entered her initial findings in the FSFN, which was picked up and continued by CPI Campbell when she took over the case. The two CPIs have collaborated on other cases in a similar fashion. The initial documentation by CPI Edwards was performed within 48 hours of the call coming into the abuse hotline as required. CPI Campbell’s completion of the report and investigation occurred after she had spoken with CPI Edwards and discussed the matter with Supervisor Gonzalez. The result of the investigation concerning the bruises on the minor resident was that the bruises were “indeterminate for physical abuse” and “indeterminate for supervisory neglect” due to the fact that a specific cause of the injuries could not be determined. Further, since the minor resident had been removed to another group home, the report concluded that there existed no continuing threat to the resident’s well-being. Even though the resident had been removed from the Tracy Court Group Home and, therefore, was not in any danger of being further harmed, CPI Campbell continued to have serious concerns about the care of residents in the group home. She believed that several allegations of the same type of harm were being made in the group home and that they could not ask the resident how she received her injuries since she was non-verbal. Myra Leitold, an APD residential licensing supervisor, had monitored the Tracy Court Group Home for the previous nine and one-half years. On December 28, 2012, she observed that a door lock to the office and bedroom was keyed so that it could be readily opened from the inside which, she believed, created a safety hazard. Between December 2012 and August 2014, the group home was cited for ten violations of Medication Administration Procedures. On one of her visits, in December 2012, Ms. Leitold noted that no current prescription was present for one of the residents, and that the label on the prescription bottle did not match the prescription drugs inside the bottle. Additionally, she found that the accounting for one of the resident’s finances was not current and that the temperature inside the group home was a chilly 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Mitchell Turner, human services program specialist for APD, recorded numerous medication administration violations at the group home. He noted on May 30, 2013, that the medication prescriptions and instructions for the Medical Administration Record (MAR) did not match. On June 18, 2013, he discovered that the wrong dosage of prescription was being given to a resident, and Ms. Nelson admitted this mistake. Mr. Turner grew so concerned about the prescription irregularities that he requested Pamela Lassiter, a medical case management registered nurse, to review the group home. Nurse Lassiter was sent to the home where she discovered and cited the home for three additional prescription violations. Even following Nurse Lassiter’s visit, on another trip to the group home on April 9, 2014, Mr. Turner cited an additional MAR violation. He believed these violations posed a health and safety risk to the residents affected and exhibited a pattern of neglect by Respondent to the health and safety of vulnerable children. During the period when prescription and other violations were noted, on January 11, 2013, Ms. Nelson exceeded the maximum licensed capacity of three in the group home when she accepted a fourth resident. She did not have prior written approval from APD to exceed her licensed capacity of residents. On September 25, 2013, Mr. Turner issued a Notice of Non-Compliance (NNC) because Ms. Nelson again exceeded the licensed capacity for the number of residents in the group home without prior written approval from APD. Mr. Turner expressed his concerns over the repeated violations by Respondent. Ms. Nelson testified that she had received verbal approval for the placements in excess of the home’s licensed capacity from Meisha Stewart, residential placement coordinator for APD, and that on a prior occasion in 2012, she had accepted a resident after receiving verbal approval. This testimony was rebutted by both Geraldine Williams, the former regional operations manager for APD’s Suncoast Region, and Ms. Leitold, who testified she had never known APD to give verbal approval for a placement of a resident in a group home. With the high volume of referrals APD makes to group homes, they cannot operate in a system where verbal placements occur. All placements must be made in writing. When a provider receives a NNC, the provider is required to submit and successfully complete a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). Mr. Turner testified that Ms. Nelson did not submit or successfully complete a CAP for the MAR violations. On January 17, 2013, Ms. Leitold visited the group home and observed the following violations: volatile materials were not stored in approved metal containers and three prescriptions for a resident’s medications were not present. The gasoline, charcoal, and lighter fluid found by Ms. Leitold were required to be stored in approved metal containers. Keeping these materials in the open posed a safety hazard for the minor residents by giving them access to volatile materials. On November 4, 2014, Ms. Nelson sent an email to Meisha Stewart advising her she intended to accept a non-APD client for placement in the Tracy Court Group Home without APD’s prior approval. Ms. Nelson testified that since that same resident had been placed in the Tracy Court Group Home for a six-month period in 2013, she believed she did not need a new approval in 2014.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying V-Agape, LLC, d/b/a Tracy Court Group Home’s application for license renewal. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Lindsey Ann West, Esquire The Plante Law Group, PLC 806 North Armenia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 (eServed) Gerald D. Siebens, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 1313 North Tampa Street, Suite 515 Tampa, Florida 33602-3328 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Executive Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) David De La Paz, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
