The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is entitled to the renewal of his license to operate an adult family-care home.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has operated an adult family-care home at 7128 North 50th Street in Tampa. Petitioner owns this home with his cousin. In anticipation of the expiration of his license on September 29, 2006, Petitioner filed with Respondent an application for renewal on May 23, 2006. Renewal applications prompt annual survey inspections, so, after the receipt of Petitioner's renewal application, one of Respondent's surveyors visited the home and performed an annual survey inspection. She noted items that required a follow-up inspection, so, on August 3, 2006, one of Respondent's surveyors returned for the follow-up inspection. Respondent's surveyor was met at the door by Sherille Guider, who stated that she was the caregiver. The surveyor asked to see Petitioner, but she told her that Petitioner did not live at the house, although she showed the surveyor the locked room that belonged to Petitioner. When asked to produce certain routine documents, the caregiver replied that she did not have access to such documents, as they were in the locked room of Petitioner and the caregiver did not have a key. Petitioner appeared a short time after the surveyor's arrival and produced the requested documents. There is some dispute as to whether he offered to show his room to the inspector, but his testimony is unrebutted that he kept a room, with clothes and toiletries, for his exclusive use at the home. He claimed that he resided at the home, although he admitted that did not spend every night there. Subsequent investigation revealed that Petitioner and his wife, from whom he has been separated for two years, claim a different residence within Hillsborough County as their homestead property. Also, Petitioner's driver license currently bears the address of the home, but, at the time of the incident, bore the address of his homestead property. The same appears to be true of the certificate of title to his motor vehicle. Petitioner testified that he originally planned to operate the home as his fulltime job, but was unable to generate enough money doing so. He has since found employment as a certified nursing assistant and often works the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Four or five months prior to the follow-up inspection, Petitioner had hired Ms. Guider to serve as a caregiver at the home. In return for her services as a caregiver, Petitioner rented a room in the home to her at reduced rent. Petitioner allowed her boyfriend also to move into a room, but required a background screening on him, as well as on Ms. Guider. After several delays, the boyfriend completed his form, and, after submitting it, Petitioner learned that the boyfriend had a criminal record. Petitioner demanded that the boyfriend move out. Eventually, Petitioner had to summon law enforcement officers to eject the man. This episode preceded the follow-up inspection. Ms. Guider's hearsay statement to Respondent's surveyor appears to be the strongest evidence on which Respondent is relying in this case. However, for the reason noted above, Ms. Guider was unhappy with Petitioner. Even before her boyfriend had been ejected from the home, Ms. Guider had approached Petitioner's two residents with a plan for her to start her own adult family-care home and for them to move into it. Ms. Guider's short period of employment with Petitioner terminated one day when, without notice, she asked a friend of Petitioner to drive her to the airport so she could fly home to Chicago. She did and never returned. For all these reasons, Ms. Guider does not appear to be a reliable source of information as to Petitioner's place of residence. Petitioner testified that he resides at the home. A friend of 20 years, who also operates an adult family-care home, testified that she visits Petitioner's home regularly and knows that he resides there. Petitioner's claiming of homestead exemption at another address is less evidence of his primary residence and more evidence of his carelessness or fraud in maintaining current information with the Hillsborough County property appraiser's office. The old addresses shown on the driver license and certificate of title are of little importance in determining Petitioner's residence, given the other evidence establishing the home as his residence and his subsequent updating of the addresses in these official records.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order granting Petitioner's application to renew his adult family-care home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Kenneth A. Donaldson 7128 North 50th Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Gerald L. Pickett Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive Sebring Building, 330K St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
The Issue Whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner a standard developmental disability group home license because her facility is a "mobile home" as defined in Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner decided that she wanted to operate a group home for developmentally disabled clients. She wanted to locate the home on property that she owns at 630 South East 10th Street, Williston, Florida. Petitioner conferred with Respondent's staff before deciding whether to construct a site-built home or an off-site built home on the property. Respondent's licensing specialist referred Petitioner to Respondent's fire inspector. Respondent's fire inspector recommended that Petitioner consider using a Palm Harbor Home with certain improvements to the windows, floors, and roof. Specifically, the improvement included special strengthened roofing, special strengthened flooring, wallboard rather than plastic walls, fire alarms and detectors in every room, as well as wider windows. Petitioner decided to buy a four-bedroom/two-bath unit with over 2,000 square feet from Palm Harbor Homes. The home was manufactured by Palm Harbor Homes at its Plant City, Florida, factory in 2001. Each section of the home had a seal certifying that it was built in compliance with the Federated Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard Act. With the upgrades that Petitioner requested, the home cost Petitioner approximately $80,000. The home complies with or exceeds the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development standards. Petitioner took the house plans and pictures of the home to Respondent's licensing specialist who approved the home. The supervisor of the licensing specialist concurred because he was under the impression that the home was a "Jim Walter-type" modular home that met the criteria for group homes. Petitioner's fire inspector also approved the home. The fire inspector concluded that the home meets the high standards of the 2001 Fire Protection Code. In the meantime, Petitioner followed through with completing the paperwork for her application. Petitioner, with the help of Respondent's staff, proceeded to develop the required budget and paperwork for a Medicaid waiver. Petitioner's licensing specialist and fire inspector approved Petitioner's home, finding that it was suitable as a group home. Respondent granted Petitioner a conditional license on June 1, 2001. This license allowed Petitioner to operate for six months. In July 2001, Petitioner's first client moved in the home. Petitioner received several more client referrals. In September 2001, a second licensing specialist inspected Petitioner's group home. The second licensing specialist, who was not involved in issuing Petitioner's conditional license, conducted the routine inspection in anticipation of Petitioner receiving a standard developmentally disabled group home license. The licensing specialist concluded that the home was in fact a "mobile home," which cannot qualify as an approved structure for a group home. The licensing specialist took pictures of the home and of the State of Florida Installation Certification Label attached to the home. This label certifies as follows: [T]hat the installation of this mobile home to be in accordance with Florida Statutes 320.8249, 320.8325 and Rules of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle Construction. Respondent's staff sought clarification from Respondent's headquarters regarding the status of Petitioner's home. By letter dated September 18, 2001, Respondent advised Petitioner that "mobile homes" as defined by Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes, shall not be used for group home facilities. Respondent did not issue a standard license to the Petitioner. Petitioner's home, although a very high quality "manufactured home," still is a type of mobile home under Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's home meets all other licensing standards for developmental disability group homes except for the standard at issue in this case. On or about December 20, 2001, Respondent's district office staff requested a one-year waiver for Petitioner's group home. The written request indicates that Respondent's staff intended to seek a waiver for this home annually until a proposed rule allowing licensing of manufactured homes was promulgated. Respondent granted Petitioner the waiver on or about January 8, 2001. The waiver is valid through the 2002 licensure period. However, there is no guarantee that the Department headquarters will always grant the waiver.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner a standard developmental disability group home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel Mutch, Esquire Mutch & Brigham, P.A. 2114 Northwest 40th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32605 Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Peggy Sanford, 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 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 The issues in this case concern whether the Respondent is entitled to renewal of her license to provide residential services for persons who are developmentally disabled.
Findings Of Fact Introductory and background facts At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent provided, and was licensed to provide, residential services for persons who are developmentally disabled. The Respondent provided these services in a group home where she had from 4 to 6 clients at any one time. From time to time representatives of the Department would identify deficiencies in the way the Respondent was providing the residential services. Typically, the Department would advise the Respondent of specific deficiencies following a visit to the Respondent's group home. The Respondent would often take steps to correct the identified deficiencies, but some deficiencies tended to occur again and again. The Department attempted to work with the Respondent to help her remedy deficiencies and to help her prevent future deficiencies. Eventually, on February 25, 1999, the Department advised the Respondent by letter that it did not intend to renew her license to provide residential services for persons who are developmentally disabled. The Department's letter of February 25, 1999, advised the Respondent that the "quality of care by your facility does not meet the minimum licensure standard[s] as specified in Chapter 10F-6," and went on to list a number of specific concerns under the major categories of "Administration" and "Health and Safety." The concerns itemized in the letter were as follows: Administration Records of expenditure from individual residents' accounts are not maintained. Lack of accountability of client's personal allowances. Inappropriate use of client's personal allowance. Inadequate receipts for client's expenditures. Incomplete employee files. Employees without personnel files. Health and Safety Clients locked inside the house without supervision. Gate/Entrance chained. Lack of evidence of all night supervision. Clients left unsupervised during a week- end. Inadequate food supply. Clients' lack of access to food. Food prepared away from residence. Menus not posted. The letter also advised the Respondent of her right to request an administrative hearing if she wished to contest the Department's proposed course of action. After some initial difficulties complying with the Department's requirements, the Respondent's group home (which had been moved from its original location without sufficient notice to the Department) was issued a conditional license on January 1, 1998, followed by a standard license issued on March 1, 1998. The standard license was valid for one year from the date of issuance. In March of 1998 when the standard license was issued, conditions at the Respondent's group home appeared to be satisfactory. For the first few months following the issuance of the standard license, the Department did not have any significant concerns about the manner in which the Respondent's group home was being operated. The Respondent appeared to be responsive to suggestions by Department personnel and appeared to be trying to work with Department personnel to operate her group home in a proper manner. From March through most of June of 1998, there were no major problems at the Respondent's group home. The incident on June 27, 19982 On June 27, 1998, an incident occurred at the Respondent's group home that caused the Department a great deal of concern. On that day, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Mr. L. N. arrived at the Respondent's group home, in Boynton Beach, Florida, to visit his son who is mentally retarded. He was unable to enter because the gate to the fence surrounding the home was chained and locked. He observed some of the group home residents in the front yard and others in the house. Still unable to enter the gate later when he returned, Mr. L. N. telephoned police. Road Patrol Officer Susan Gitto responded. At approximately 6:45 p.m., Officer Susan Gitto arrived at the group home and climbed the fence. One of the men at the group home kept pointing to the house next door, north of the group home. Officer Gitto found no one on the premises other than the six mentally handicapped men who were in their pajamas and inside watching television. Based on information from Mr. L. N., Officer Gitto telephoned the responsible agency, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF). A DCF case worker supervisor, Anna Glowala, arrived at the group home at approximately 9:00 p.m. She described the residents as nervous. Most of them were functioning at a level below the ability to respond to emergencies, that is, unable to telephone 911 or to evacuate in case of a fire. Ms. Glowala prepared a preliminary report on her findings at the group home. Sometime after 9:00 p.m., a woman who identified herself as Elvira Brown arrived with a key to the group home. She intended to take care of the clients that evening, but was sent away by Officer Gitto, who also left the home soon after that. At approximately 12:45 a.m., on June 28, 1998, Ms. Glowala's supervisor, William D. Shea, arrived at the group home. Mr. Shea relieved Ms. Glowala and stayed with the residents for the rest of the night. The six adult residents, according to Mr. Shea, were lower functioning and non-verbal. At 6:15 a.m., a woman who identified herself as Sharon Butler arrived to cook breakfast and supervise the residents. She assured Mr. Shea that she was an employee of the group home and would remain at the group home until the licensed operator returned from an out-of-town trip. After he left, Mr. Shea asked Ms. Glowala to continue to monitor the group home by telephone until the operator returned. Mr. Shea did not check the woman's identity or determine whether she was, in fact, a qualified employee, as required by DCF. Mr. Shea testified that a group home operator may leave properly screened employees to relieve them when they are absent. The screening includes fingerprinting for police background checks. DCF witness, Sue Pearlman Eaton, received the report of the incident on June 30, 1998. On July 1, 1998, she initiated an investigation by visiting the group home. When she arrived, she found one resident in the front yard sleeping on a lawn chair, and others inside watching television. One resident took her to a room in response to her request for help finding the owner/operator, but no one was there. She noticed where five of the six residents of the home were located, and what they were doing. After approximately twenty minutes to a half hour, Ms. Pearlman-Eaton observed the operator coming into the house. She was angry and said she had been in the backyard with the sixth resident feeding her dogs. She told Ms. Pearlman-Eaton that she hired Ms. Butler to stay at the group home during her previous weekend trip to Tampa. The operator reported that she left at approximately 12 o'clock noon on Saturday, and that Ms. Butler was present when she left. Ms. Pearlman-Eaton also questioned Ms. Butler, as a part of her investigation. As she apparently confirmed, Elvira Brown, Ms. Butler's cousin, was supposed to stay at the group home from 2:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m., while Ms. Butler worked at another job. According to Ms. Pearlman-Eaton's report, Ms. Brown telephoned Ms. Butler and told her that her work at the group home was completed between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., and that the residents were in bed. The report indicated that Ms. Brown stated that Ms. Butler asked her to help by feeding the residents and getting them ready for bed. Then she was to lock the gate and leave. Based on Ms. Butler's statement to Ms. Pearlman-Eaton that the group home owner/operator Mrs. V. R. T. approved Ms. Butler's plan to have Ms. Brown serve as an interim caretaker, the investigators concluded that both of them were perpetrators of abuse by neglecting clients who require 24-hour supervision. DCF failed to present the testimony of either Ms. Brown or Ms. Butler at the hearing. Therefore, the testimony of Mrs. V. R. T. and her credibility could not be weighed against that of any other person with direct knowledge of the incident on June 27, 1998. Ms. Pearlman-Eaton's report noted that the group home clients and facility were neat and clean, with no clients "acting out" or appearing to be in distress. Prior to the time that the group home owner/operator came in from the backyard on July 1, 1998, Ms. Pearlman-Eaton did not look in the backyard or hear a car arrive. She also did not determine whether or not there were dogs in the yard. During Ms. Pearlman-Eaton's questioning of Ms. Butler, Ms. Butler told her that she also worked at the Flamingo Clusters, another facility licensed by the State to provide developmental services. Clients of Flamingo Clusters are more severely handicapped than those at the V. R. T. group home. Ms. Pearlman-Eaton was initially investigating Ms. Butler and Ms. Brown. She added the group home operator to the neglect report, after she waited for her for up to a half an hour after arriving, on July 1, 1998, to conduct her investigation. While she was waiting to find Mrs. V. R. T., her report indicates that Mrs. Pearlman-Eaton telephoned Anna Glowala, the case work supervisor. She was advised by Ms. Glowala that ". . . it was not necessary for residents to be in eye range of the supervisor continually and its [sic] okay for them to be left alone for no more than 1/4 hr." Anna Glowala also noted the condition of the group home when she stayed with the clients. She remembered there were two large dogs, one a Rottweiler, in the backyard. She also saw a pathway between the two adjacent houses, the group home and the house next door, which is owned by the owner/operator's husband. Ms. Glowala also saw laundry and other items on a sofa in the garage where the owner/operator claims that she sleeps. The garage area also included a refrigerator, washer and dryer. Kay Oglesby, a DCF senior case manager, testified that she had previously warned the owner/operator that the gate to the fence should not be locked and that the residents needed constant supervision. She believed that during her first year supervising the facility, the owner/operator and her husband occupied a master bedroom in the group home. After DCF requested that they take in two additional clients, in May 1998, the owner/operator said she moved to the garage. Ava Kowalczyk, a DCF Human Services Program Specialist, confirmed that only screened and approved employees may work in a group home. The owner/operator has the responsibility for assuring that group home employees are qualified. She expressed concern that the owner/operator may have left the residents with her husband before he was properly trained. Ms. Kowalczyk described the cluttered condition of the sofa in the garage as inconsistent with Mrs. V. R. T.'s assertions that she sleeps in the garage. Finally, DCF employee Martin J. Fortgang confirmed the need for adequate supervision and the DCF's determination that inadequate supervision constitutes neglect. The group home owner/operator, the Respondent, Mrs. V. R. T., testified that two years ago she married her husband, who had lived next door for 18 years. While he lived with her in the group home, her husband's house next door was leased. She knew she was required to live on the premises and testified that she has done so, initially in the master bedroom. After accepting two more clients, on an emergency basis after another group home closed, she moved to the garage. Her husband has apparently moved back to his home next door. In March 1998, Mrs. V. R. T. submitted to DCF, as confirmed by Ava Kowalczyk, the names of her husband, Sharon Butler, and another employee for screening and approval. The document included fingerprints and a police report, which showed that Ms. Butler had a prior arrest for armed burglary. Mrs. V. R. T. denied ever giving permission for Elvira Brown to substitute for Sharon Butler. Although Sharon Butler had numbers to reach Mrs. V. R. T. by pager and cellular phone, and at her hotel in Tampa, Mrs. V. R. T. denied that Ms. Butler ever telephoned her for approval to leave Ms. Brown at the group home. Despite her arrest record, the documents which Mrs. V. R. T. submitted and received from DCF appear to confirm that Ms. Butler was an acceptable employee. One memorandum labeled a "Routing and Transmittal Slip" dated 3/31/98 states: Per your request, I have processed the Transfer of Request Form for Sharon Butler. Please see enclosed printout and Transfer form. Please maintain the [sic] these in your personnel files. The record indicates that Mrs. V. R. T. received written notice that Sharon Butler was not an approved caretaker on July 16, 1998. In contrast to the apparent approval form of March 31, 1998, the notice on July 16, 1998, from Ava Kowalczyk asserted that: This is to document my visits to your house on June 30, 1998 and July 2, 1998. At that time you informed us that for a year you have had an employee Sharon Butler, who acts as caretaker in your absence. This employee did not meet basic standards of licensing requirements. Ms. Butler's file consisted of her fingerprint card and local law enforcement checks completed on her on or about March 31, 1998. This was the first time you brought to our attention that you employed someone other than yourself and your husband. Considering the contents of the Routing and Transmittal Slip attached to the documents dated March 31, 1998, it was reasonable for Mrs. V. R. T. to believe that Sharon Butler was an approved employee. One section on the Request for Transfer of Records indicates that Ms. Butler was approved for dual employment at the group home and another facility, having had her screening originally completed on October 3, 1994. DCF has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mrs. V. R. T. knew that Sharon Butler was not properly screened and approved on June 27, 1998, when she left her in charge of the group home. DCF has also failed to demonstrate that Mrs. V. R. T. knew or approved of plans for Sharon Butler to leave the group home clients in the care of Elvira Brown while she was out-of-town. Other problems at the Respondent's group home On some occasions the Respondent would lock the doors of the group home while the clients were inside. When she did so, she would leave the door keys on top of the television set inside the group home.3 On some occasions the Respondent would lock the gate in the fence around the group home property while clients were on the property. The Department usually made monthly review visits to the Respondent's group home. Some of the problems noted during these monthly reviews are described in the paragraphs which follow. During the review visit on June 30, 1998, some of the food for the clients was stored away from the group home premises, and was not readily available to the clients. Specifically, no drinks or snacks were readily available for the clients that day. The required 5-day supply of food was not present on the premises, and the food that was present did not correspond to the menu. During the review visit on August 26, 1998, there were errors in the personal allowance logs of the clients. Also, on this date once again the food supplies did not correspond to the menu. During the review visit on September 22, 1998, the personal allowance logs of the clients were not up to date. Specifically, there were no receipts, there was no documentation of the personal allowance received by any of the clients, and there was no documentation of the SSI/SSA benefits received by any of the clients. Once again, the food supplies did not correspond to the menu, and there were inadequate food supplies for a hurricane emergency. During the review visit on October 28, 1998, the personal allowance logs for the clients were again incomplete. Receipts for client expenses were missing, and there was inadequate documented information about the expenses. There were no menus posted on this day. Also, the gate to the fence around the Respondent's group home was chained shut when the Department personnel arrived. This condition was of particular concern to the Department personnel, because the chained gate was an obstruction to any emergency evacuation of the group home. During the review visit on November 20, 1998, the personal allowance logs for the clients were again incomplete and inadequate. Again, receipts were missing. Again, the food present at the group home was insufficient to constitute the required 5-day supply of food. Again, no menus were posted. Also, on this occasion the meals for the clients were being prepared next door, rather than in the group home, as required. All of the clients at the Respondent's group home were developmentally disabled adult males. All of the clients functioned at a very low developmental level. Some were just barely verbal. Clients at this level of disability need constant supervision while they are in the group home. They cannot be left unsupervised without exposing them to serious risk of harm to their well-being. Even at night when such clients are sleeping, a responsible, appropriately trained, adult must be present in the group home to provide supervision and assistance if one of the clients wakes up in the night and needs direction or assistance.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services District issue a Final Order in this case denying the renewal of the Respondent's group home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2000
The Issue Should Petitioner's application for foster home licensure be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner operated a family foster home at 1028 Mississippi Avenue, Clewiston, Florida, which had been licensed by the Department or its predecessor, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, from April 18, 1991, through April 1, 1997. In December 1996, the Petitioner was advised that the Department's licensing staff would be recommending that Petitioner's family foster home not be granted licensure at the end of Petitioner's current licensure period of April 1, 1997. By letter dated March 17, 1997, the Department advised Petitioner that the Department would not be furnishing her a packet for relicensure except upon request by Petitioner. Subsequently, Petitioner requested a relicensure packet and made application for relicensure of her family foster home located at 1028 Mississippi Avenue, Clewiston, Florida. After reviewing Petitioner's application for renewal of her family foster home license, the Department, by letter dated September 4, 1997, advised Petitioner that her application for renewal of her family foster home located at 1028 Mississippi Avenue, Clewiston, Florida, had been denied. The denial letter provides in pertinent part as follows: The Department of Children and Families hereby denies Priscilla Ghans a license for purposes of providing substitute care for children in the custody of the State of Florida and in support thereof, would show the following: Ms. Ghans' current income and expenses are insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 65C-13.025(5), Florida Administrative Code. (Formerly known as Rule 10M-6 F.A.C.) Paul Beadle, a current household member, has criminal offenses which are disqualifying within Chapter 435 of the Florida Statutes. In accordance with Section 409.175(5)(h), Florida Statutes, a license may not be issued if any member of the household failed to pass background screening. In addition, Priscilla Ghans was licensed as a foster parent in 1996. E.O. was a foster child placed in her home in 1996. During his placement, Ms. Ghans failed to provide adequate supervision which is a violation of Sections 409.175(4)(a)(1,2,4) and (8)(b)1, Florida Statutes and Rule 65C- 13.024(1)(b)(1,a), Florida Administrative Code. When E. O. left her home, his personal belongings were placed in a garbage bag along with trash and debris. The majority of his clothes were unwearable in that they were to small or unsuitable. This is a violation of Rule 65C-13.024(1)(b)(1,c) and (3,a-d) Florida Administrative Code. . . . Petitioner's monthly expenses total $491.00. Petitioner's monthly income from Social Security and SSI total $504.00. A Financial Statement filed with the Department by Petitioner refers to Petitioner having a savings account but does not indicate the amount of the savings account or if this savings account is available for monthly expenses. Neither the Department nor Petitioner offered any other evidence concerning this savings account. Likewise, there was testimony that Petitioner's son, Paul Beadle, paid Petitioner room and board while with Petitioner. However, there was no evidence as to the amount Beadle paid Petitioner for room and board. On June 23, 1997, Beadle pled nolo contendere to: (a) possession of cocaine, a third degree felony, and a violation of 893.13(6((a), Florida Statutes; (b) possession of marijuana (20 grams or less), a first degree misdemeanor, and a violation of Section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes; and (c) possession of paraphernalia, a first degree misdemeanor, and a violation of Section 893.147, Florida Statutes. Since the felony offense was committed less than three years ago, Beadle cannot be granted an exemption from disqualification under Section 435.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Paul Beadle lived in the home with Petitioner up until July 1997. Although Petitioner has never established the date that Beadle moved from her home, she contends that Beadle has moved out of her home. However, Petitioner testified that in the past when Beadle wanted to return, she has always allowed him to move back home. E.O., a foster child approximately 13 years of age, was placed in Petitioner's family foster home in 1996. After his placement, Petitioner allowed E.O. to attend a block party in the neighborhood without being under her supervision or the supervision of any properly screened adult. Around 11:00 p.m., E.O. had to bang on the door in order to get in since Petitioner had gone to sleep. On another occasion, E.O. made plans to stay overnight with a friend. However, the friend's parents had not been screened to supervise foster children. On this occasion, the father of the friend called Petitioner to advise her that E.O. could not spend the night. Although E.O. did not return home until the next morning, Petitioner did not contact law enforcement or the Department. Petitioner also went shopping without advising E.O. that she was leaving or when she would return. E.O., who had never been given a key by Petitioner, attempted to break into Petitioner's home. E.O. was removed from Petitioner's care in August 1996 on an emergency basis when E.O. threatened suicide. Subsequently, E.O.'s clothing was retrieved from Petitioner in two plastic bags and delivered to Valerie Welter, foster parent who had taken E.O. Upon opening the bags of clothing, it was clear that Petitioner had failed to properly maintain the clothes and had failed to furnished E.O. with clothes of the proper size.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a family foster home. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Priscilla Ghans Post Office Box 2252 Clewiston, Florida 33440 Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
