Findings Of Fact The Petitioners R.G. and M.G. were licensed as foster parents and their home as a Children Youth and Families foster home for dependent children at all times pertinent hereto. The Respondent is an agency of the state of Florida charged with licensure of foster parents and foster homes and with regulating and enforcing the standards of care of children placed in such foster homes as dependent children. This dispute apparently arose on or about April 18, 1990 when M.G., the foster mother, brought the M. children to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services office on that date to talk with a foster care counselor about problems experienced with the M. children in her home. Apparently the visit to the Department's office arose because M.G. had discovered that one of the children had allegedly stolen one or more articles from a local store in the community, or believed that she had, and was seeking the advise and council of Department's representative concerning the manner in which to address that perceived problem. During the course of that encounter with the Department's representative the M. children or some of them related incidents occurring in the home in the past while they were placed in the custody of the Petitioners which they felt involved or constituted mistreatment by M.G. Upon learning of these reports Department personnel removed the children from the G. home on April 18, 1990. No other children have been placed by the Respondent in the G. foster home since that time. Michelle M. testified that Petitioner M.G. called Marie M. a bitch, a whore and a slut on one occasion and gave Marie M. "the bird" (an obscene gesture). Michelle M. testified that M.G. called Marie M. a slut and stated that "she's just going to grow up to be a whore." Apparently Marie M. and Michelle M. had reported that M.G. called Marie M. a whore when Marie M. told M.G. about borrowing fifty cents from a boy at school. At the hearing, however, Marie M. testified that she borrowed fifty cents from a boy at school and that when M.G. learned of it she said "it would make her look like a whore." Mandy M. testified that M.G. thought that Mandy had called her "a faggot" and that, instead, she told her that she had called her sister that name but that M.G. did not believe her and sent her to her room and shoved her into the room whereupon she fell and hit herself against the bed or bedpost by accident. Michelle M. testified that on a church hayride a boy threw hay and hit M.G. in the face whereupon, thinking Michelle M. had done it, that M.G. hit Michelle on the leg with a flashlight. Mandy M. testified that M.G. hit Michelle on the leg with a flashlight, but her testimony revealed she knew nothing of that incident and her description of it was related to her by one of her sisters. Additionally, Marie M. testified that she saw M.G. pick up an infant by one arm from a crib and scold it for crying as she was picking the infant up to hold the infant in her arms. Michelle and Marie M. testified that M.G. held Marie M.'s mouth open and shoved red hot sauce into her mouth with a spoon as punishment for some perceived infraction. Marie M. testified that M.G. threw hot tea or hot water on the face of Marie M. while the child was asleep on a couch. M.G. categorically denies all the allegations made by the girls, the foster children in question referenced above. She denies ever making obscene gestures, ("the bird"), at any of the girls and denies calling them names such as bitch, slut or whore. She concedes that she may have admonished them or one of them about not "acting like a slut or a whore," etc. She also denies ever having administered hot sauce to any of the children. She said that on one occasion she gave Mandy some mustard on a teaspoon when the child inquired what it tasted like because she had never tasted mustard. She gave her a small amount of it just to show her how it tasted. She denies ever throwing hot tea or hot water on the face of any of the children and denies causing any of the children injury, specifically concerning the bedroom incident when the child apparently bruised her back falling against the bed. M.G. did use confinement for brief periods in a child's room as a form of discipline for inappropriate conduct in the home. She also denies hitting Michelle M. on the leg with a flashlight during the church hayride. In fact due to her position in the haywagon at the other end of the wagon from the child in question, it would have been impossible for her to reach over and hit her with a flashlight and that incident did not occur. M.G.'s testimony concerning the children's conduct and family life in the home with the children is to the effect that the older two girls, particularly the oldest, Michelle M., had a tendency to lie in order to "get their way"; that the girls were unruly and that they, particularly Michelle, used their relationship with HRS to try to intimidate the foster parents, particularly M.G. They had threatened to report M.G. for improper behavior towards the children in the home. The children resented the foster parents authority. Her testimony describes in detail, as do the exhibits submitted by the Petitioners, consisting of the monthly reports M.G. made to HRS, the progress of the girls and conditions generally in the foster home. This testimony and evidence shows that the Petitioners generally provided the children a good, wholesome home environment, with extensive involvement in school and church activities and with ample wholesome recreation activities at the home site on a lake. During the tenure of the girls in the Petitioners' home their scholastic progress improved markedly such that they were all earning "A and B" grades in school and otherwise were progressing well in school. M.G.'s testimony established that the Petitioners were providing a wholesome home environment for the children and were generally conscientious about caring for the children's needs, including medical needs, and with maintaining contact with and reporting to HRS concerning the children's living conditions and their progress in the home and in the school and church environment. The testimony of M.G. to the general effect that the older girls, particularly the oldest child, had a tendency to threaten reporting the parents or M.G. to HRS concerning their conduct as foster parents and their willingness to lie in an attempt to get their way or to intimidate the foster parents is corroborated by the letter in evidence as corroborative hearsay authored by Linda Kennedy. She is an acquaintance of the Petitioners associated with the Petitioners through the foster parent program. That letter indicates that when the girls were being taken to HRS to make statements concerning the incidents in question that they were reported to have said that they wanted to "get back at her" meaning M.G., the Petitioner and that Marie was heard to instruct Mandy not to talk to a lawyer because she "now liked M.G." and that Michelle had commented to the effect that she "wanted to really get her," meaning M.G. This information is taken from a hearsay letter in evidence pursuant to the above cited provision of Section 120.58, Florida Statutes but it corroborates the testimony to the same general effect of M.G. and corroborates testimony of Mandy who, after describing in her testimony some of the alleged parental abuse by M.G., testified that her sisters had asked her to say things to hurt M.G. Because of these revelations contained in the testimony of Mandy M. and the testimony of M.G., as corroborated by the letter in evidence authored by Linda Kennedy, it is deemed that the testimony of the three children can be accorded scant credibility and resultant weight. Accordingly the testimony of M.G. and Petitioner R.G. is accepted over that of the testimony of the three children testifying for the Respondent and it is found that the incidents described by the three children did not occur or did not occur in the way described by the three children such that they can not be deemed to have constituted abusive, disciplinary parenting practices and prohibited disciplinary practices. The testimony of Donna M. establishes that she has overseen the operation and management of foster homes in her capacity with the Department for many years. After the M. children were removed from M.G. and her husband and their foster home she had a number of telephone conversations with M.G. M.G. appeared to her, based upon her observance and her experience, to seem "fairly incoherent" during those telephone conversations on occasion. Consequently she recommended to M.G. that, in the course of the controversy concerning whether or not the foster home should be relicensed, that M.G. obtain a psychological evaluation. M.G. apparently scheduled that evaluation, appeared at the psychologist's office but, as shown by Petitioner's exhibit 5, the psychologist's report, apparently did not genuinely feel that she needed to get an evaluation. She rather merely consulted the psychologist concerning his advice to her about her dealings with HRS. He declined to render such advice and no psychological evaluation was ever made. In view of Ms. Mimms testimony, which is accepted, and in view of the comments made in the letter of Ms. Kennedy, and from the hearing officer's observance of the demeanor of M.G. and consideration of her testimony, it is deemed appropriate that a psychological evaluation of M.G. be obtained as a condition upon relicensure.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services granting the application for relicensure of the Petitioners as a Children Youth and Families foster home for dependent children, conditioned on the obtaining of a satisfactory psychological evaluation of M.G. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5842 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (The Petitioners submitted no proposed findings of fact which can be independently and specifically ruled upon). - I. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight and credibility of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire HRS District 1 Legal Office P.O. Box 8420 Pensacola, FL 32505-0420 Ronald and Marjorie Grover 4713 Radio Road Milton, FL 32583 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of acts and omissions to justify the revocation of his license to operate a family foster home, pursuant to Section 409.175(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner licensed Respondent to operate a family foster home from June 22, 2000, until May 15, 2001, at which time Petitioner revoked Respondent's license. The only foster children placed with Petitioner were Ju. K. (Ju.) and J. K. (J.), who are brothers. During the majority of the period in question, Ju. was 16 years old and J. was 17 years old. The boys were adopted at infancy. However, their adoptive mother died when they were young. The adoptive father remarried, but died a few years later, in January 1999. The stepmother never adopted the children, and, shortly after the death of their adoptive father, she turned over the two children to foster care. Respondent had been a friend of the stepmother since the mid-1980s and, through her, had met the adoptive father. Respondent became close with the couple and their children, whom he often visited on holidays. Learning that at least one of the boys had had problems in foster care, Respondent decided to qualify to become their foster father. At the time, Respondent was 40 years old and single and had not raised any other children. However, Respondent took the training courses required for licensing as a foster parent. After Respondent obtained his foster parent license, Project Teamwork for Kids, which is the private entity in Brevard County that recruits, trains, and licenses foster parents and places foster children with these parents, placed Ju. and J. with Respondent. J. began to live with Respondent in January 2000, and Ju. joined him in June 2000. During the summer of 2000, relations among Respondent, J., and Ju. were good. They took vacations and settled into their new lives during a period relatively free of stressful demands. Respondent asked Project Teamwork 4 Kids representatives not to start any family therapy during the summer and, once school started, asked that they again defer the initiation of such services. Respondent was aware that Ju. had been diagnosed with dissociative personality disorder, but believed that a normal home life would ameliorate this condition. During the summer, Respondent was concerned with the high school to which Ju. had been assigned for ninth grade. Respondent convinced school officials to reassign Ju. to a different high school, but school officials warned Respondent that, due to the reassignment, they would not tolerate disruptive behavior from Ju. Respondent was satisfied with J.'s assignment for tenth grade because it was the same school from which he had earlier dropped out. At the start of the school year, Respondent required weekly progress reports from J.'s teachers. However, as J.'s grades improved, Respondent dropped this requirement. During the period covered by this case, Respondent's relationship with J. was better than Respondent's relationship with Ju. Respondent and J. had a major disagreement arise at the end of October when J. returned home drunk from a homecoming celebration. A day or two later, after giving the matter considerable thought, Respondent discussed the matter with J. and imposed the punishment that Respondent would not provide his written consent for J. to obtain his driving learner's permit for six months, although Respondent would reconsider at three months. When J. learned of his punishment, he became irate and telephoned his case manager with Project Teamwork 4 Kids, Karen McCalla. He demanded that she remove him from Respondent's home. Ms. McCalla visited the home and spoke with J. alone for several hours, then Respondent, and then J. again alone. This home visit provides an early, but typical, example of the difference in perspectives of Respondent and Petitioner's witnesses. According to Respondent, Ms. McCalla arrived at the home, spoke with J. alone for several hours, spoke with Respondent, and then spoke with J. alone again. She then announced that Respondent should sign for J.'s learner's permit, but not allow him to drive for three months. Although he disagreed with the recommendation and felt that Ms. McCalla's recommendation had undercut his authority, Respondent complied with the request. Ms. McCalla's version is considerably different. Agreeing that J. was demanding that she remove him from Respondent's home, Ms. McCalla noted that J. complained generally that Respondent was "overbearing, overpowering and does not give [J.] any privacy." Focusing on the larger issues than merely the proper punishment for J.'s recent misbehavior, Ms. McCalla recommended that the family undergo family therapy. Ms. McCalla's version is credited. By Respondent's own account, Ms. McCalla spent "several hours" speaking with J. initially. Although underage drinking is a serious matter that may necessitate serious discussions, it is unlikely that Ms. McCalla and J. could have spent "several hours" on this single transgression. It is more likely that J. broadened his complaints in the manner described by Ms. McCalla. Respondent's contrary version either undermines his credibility as a witness or, if sincere, his competence as a foster parent. During the fall, Respondent's relationship with Ju. deteriorated. In general, Respondent's nascent parental skills were insufficient to meet the needs of Ju. When a conventional menu of incentives and disincentives failed to produce the desired results, Respondent grew increasingly frustrated, but declined to take advantage of the support resources available to him through Project Teamwork 4 Kids and its contractors. Instead, Respondent, alone, proceeded with his own disciplinary scheme, intensifying his disciplinary measures each time that less intense measures failed. Eventually, conflict between Respondent and Ju. escalated, and the domestic situation became unbearable for both of them. For instance, at school, Respondent was legitimately concerned that Ju. not jeopardize his placement at the high school to which he had been assigned due to Respondent's efforts. Worried about Ju.'s associations at school, especially due to Ju.'s poor school associations in the past, Respondent required Ju. to sign into the library immediately after eating lunch, so he would not have the chance to socialize with his peers. If Ju. failed to sign in, a teacher was to telephone Respondent, who would go to school to find Ju. By Respondent's admission, he enforced this arrangement for four to six weeks. Respondent was adamant that Ju. not date until he was 16 years old. This was a legitimate concern due to sexual behaviors that Ju. had displayed prior to his arrival in Respondent's home. Early in the school year, while Ju. was still 15 years old, Respondent overheard him speaking on the telephone with a girl from school. Respondent interrupted the conversation and asked Ju. to ask the girl if her mother were home. Finding that she was, Respondent asked to speak to the mother. Explaining to the mother that Ju. was not allowed to go on one-on-one dates until he reached 16 years of age, Respondent, by his own testimony, managed to agitate and offend the mother. Respondent admitted that Ju. became upset because he had considered the girl his girlfriend. On another occasion, Respondent required that Ju. end a relationship with a girl at school. Without detailing any concerns about sexual activity, Respondent explained his intervention by noting that Ju. had taken another boy's girlfriend, who seems to have not been suitable for Ju.--in Respondent's opinion. At home, numerous times Respondent employed more intense strategies when conventional disciplinary interventions failed to produce the desired results. For instance, when Ju. persisted in viewing sexually unsuitable material on the television in his room, Respondent removed the bedroom door, thus depriving Ju. of all privacy. Also, when Ju. persisted in abusing and overusing the telephone, even after being placed on telephone restriction, Respondent removed the handsets when he left the home, leaving the boy without telephone service in the home, although he could walk outside the apartment to a neighbor or a pay phone. Gradually, frustration erupted into physical confrontations. Twice, Respondent ripped T-shirts off the back of the boy during angry exchanges. Once, Respondent lightly slapped the boy on the mouth when he swore at Respondent. Twice, Respondent intentionally damaged audio equipment used by Ju. For each of these actions, Respondent devised transparent stories to cover up his failure to handle Ju.'s transgressions in a positive, effective manner. As the above incidents suggest, Respondent sought to impose a level of control over Ju. that was unsuitable for Ju.'s age and the circumstances of the relationship that existed between Respondent and Ju. Lacking both experience and maturity, Respondent obstinately dug in deeper each time his discipline failed to produce the desired result. Never lacking in good motives, Respondent lacked the resources needed for the difficult parenting task that Ju. presented, and Respondent exacerbated the situation by refusing to accept the assistance of professionals who might have been able to help him with Ju. Over time, even Respondent's innocuous behavior- modification techniques became counterproductive. For instance, Respondent routinely insisted that he and a child not go to sleep without first resolving any conflicts that may have arisen. Although a salutary policy, if applied with discretion, Respondent's overbearing implementation of this policy intensified hostilities, rather than defused them. An example of the injudicious use of this policy took place in early February 2001 when Respondent and Ju. got into an argument over an uncompleted homework assignment. Respondent warned Ju. that Petitioner lacked sufficient beds to accommodate Ju. at the time and that, if Ju. did not compose himself, Respondent would call the police to have Ju. removed from Respondent's home. This was especially hurtful to a child who had already known the pain of abandonment and abuse. Trying to defuse the confrontation, Ju. demanded time to step outside and cool off, but Respondent, insistent on a resolution on his terms, ordered Ju. to remain inside until Respondent had finished talking to him. By March 2001, Project Teamwork 4 Kids representatives had tried to intervene on at least two occasions in recent weeks, but Respondent had become increasingly resistant to what he viewed as interference from caseworkers with Ju. and J. By this time, Ju. wanted out of the home, and Respondent wanted him out of the home. On March 28, 2001, Project Teamwork 4 Kids removed Ju. from Respondent's home. About six weeks later, Project Teamwork 4 Kids also removed J. from Respondent's home. Petitioner proved some of its specific allegations and failed to prove others, but, as the Administrative Law Judge noted at the final hearing, the basic issue in this case is whether Petitioner can prove that Respondent has committed an intentional or negligent act materially affected the health or safety of children in his home. Petitioner has met its burden with respect to Ju. Ju. would have been a considerable challenge to a person with considerable parenting experience and skills. Respondent lacked both, but, knowing Ju.'s special needs, nonetheless sought the responsibility of serving as Ju.'s foster father. As the situation worsened, Respondent lacked the insight to avail himself of the resources offered to him and Ju. Instead, Respondent resorted to ineffective disciplinary strategies that eventually deteriorated into angry outbursts, culminating in Respondent's angry and desperate threat to end the placement itself--a most injurious act, given Ju.'s circumstances and dissociative personality disorder. Although it is clear that Respondent assumed a very difficult undertaking, his incompetent discharge of these responsibilities, coupled with his obstinate refusal to accept readily available help from others with greater training and experience, justifies the revocation of his family foster home license.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order revoking Respondent's family foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 22nd day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 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 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Deborah Guller Department of Children and Family Services 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 502 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Samuel D. Lopez Samuel D. Lopez, P.A. 629 Southeast Fifth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Alan Siegel 500 Northwest 34th Street, Apartment #105 Pompano Beach, Florida 33064
The Issue Whether the Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster home care for dependent children should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners applied for licensure from Respondent as a Family Foster Home in 1995; the application was subsequently amended to a Therapeutic Foster Home. Respondent began the preparation of the Family Portfolio and Petitioners began Pre-Service Training. Petitioners attended and completed the required 21 hours of pre-service training for prospective foster family parents, called Group Preparation and Selection, GPS-MAPP. on June 12, 1995. Petitioner Carmen Delvalle also attended and completed a 40 hour pre- service training for prospective medical foster parents. During this time, in anticipation of being licensed, Petitioners made modifications to their home and purchased furniture that would accommodate the placement of foster children. Respondent, in preparing the Petitioners' Family Portfolio, determined that Petitioners had previously been licensed in Westchester County, New York, as foster parents from May 1987 through December 1988. The inquiry with the county Foster Home Resource Unit revealed that Petitioners' home was closed by mutual decision between Petitioners and the county Department of Social Services. The Department would not recommend that Petitioners be relicensed based on the appearance that Mrs. Delvalle was overwhelmed by the needs of foster children, which resulted in frequent relocation of children placed in her care, and appeared to be unable to understand and cope with the needs of typical foster children. Petitioner Carmen Delvalle testified that Petitioners' termination as foster parents in New York was not due to being overwhelmed by the needs of the children. Rather, it was due to the fact that Petitioners were housed in a walk-up apartment and their neighbors were constantly complaining about the noise the children would make. In addition, they received very little support and training from the Department of Social Services, and the Department was constantly placing 5 and 6 children in her home when they were only licensed to care for three children at a time. Petitioners now feel that they are better prepared to serve as foster parents because they both love children; their own children are now adults and they can give a lot of time and attention to any foster children placed in their home; they are better qualified and trained now, and can deal with the special demands of caring for foster children and medically challenged foster children. The Respondent's Senior Program Analyst prepared the Family Portfolio for the Petitioners, which included two in-home interviews. She was also Petitioners' MAPP trainer. Her evaluation of the Petitioners' application was that they did not meet the standards of Respondent, as set forth in Chapter 10M- 6, Florida Administrative Code, because of her concern that Petitioners could not cope with the stresses of being a foster parent seven days a week, twenty- four hours a day. Respondent's Licensing Administrator Marlene Richmond reviewed the completed Family Portfolio pertaining to the Petitioners and called for a staffing review of their file. She also interviewed Petitioner and determined that, although sincere, Petitioners did not exhibit an understanding of the training they received. They also could not articulate how they would respond to the pressures they would be under once a foster child was placed in their home. In her opinion, Petitioners did not meet the standards. Petitioners are caring, sincere people who wish to offer themselves and their home for the care of children in need of foster care. Petitioners' house meets the physical standards set out by Respondent, and the Petitioners have completed the required pre-service training. However, Petitioners have not articulated an understanding or exhibited the capability to take on the "role" to be successful foster parents. Petitioners do not meet the standards for licensure as foster home or a medical foster home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a final order DENYING Petitioners' application for licensure as a foster home for dependent children. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Antonio Delvalle pro se Carmen Delvalle pro se 7933 Toler Court Orlando, Florida 32822 Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Florida Baptist Children's Homes (hereinafter "FBCH") is a multi- service agency providing residential care, foster care, maternity care, and adoptions. FBCH is licensed by the Department as both a child-caring agency and as a child-placing agency. Children are referred to that agency both as voluntary placements and as non-voluntary placements. With voluntary placements, arrangements are made directly between FBCH and the child's family or guardian. With non-voluntary placements, the placement is made either by the Department or by a court. The general mix of FBCH clients in its foster homes is 50 percent voluntary placements and 50 percent Departmental placements. None of those foster children are pregnant. If a pregnant child comes to FBCH for voluntary placement in a foster home due to that client's pregnancy, that client is not considered eligible for foster care in one of FBCH's licensed foster homes; rather, that pregnant child is placed in what FBCH calls its maternity foster care program. FBCH considers its foster care program and its maternity foster care program to be two different program areas. Both the foster care program and the maternity foster care program of FBCH are operated under the same traditional foster care concept. In both foster care and maternity foster care, FBCH's clients are placed in a private home with a family wanting to assist children in need of homes. FBCH does operate a maternity group home in Lakeland, Florida. Since this is the only maternity group home operated by FBCH, it provides maternity care elsewhere in the state of Florida through the vehicle of foster homes which offer "maternity foster care" to pregnant children. Foster homes are licensed by the Department in accordance with its licensure Rule 10M-6, Florida Administrative Code. Maternity homes are institutions, rather than private single family dwellings. Maternity homes serve a larger number of residents and offer more intense services. They are more expensive to operate than traditional foster homes. Maternity homes are licensed by the Department pursuant to licensure Rule 10M-9, Florida Administrative Code, which applies to residential group care. When pregnant children are brought to FBCH for voluntary placement in FBCH's maternity foster care program, the decision has already been made that the child will not have an abortion. The pregnant child comes to FBCH to be cared for through the time of delivery of her child. During her stay, she will receive counseling concerning whether she should keep her baby or place the baby for adoption. Services required to be provided to children in foster homes and child- caring agencies licensed by the Department are set forth in Departmental rules governing the operation of such homes and institutions. The specific services to be provided once such a home or agency has been licensed are set forth in different rules than the rules regulating the licensure process. Although the Department issues the license to family foster homes used solely by child-placing agencies such as FBCH and investigates complaints about such homes, responsibility for recruitment, assessment, training of staff, and supervision of these homes lies with the child-placing agency, and almost all placements are voluntary. In other words, the Department maintains no control or influence as to what the privately-placed pregnant children are taught about planned parenthood, if anything. The Department is considering the private single-family dwelling at 10061 Southwest 158 Terrace, Miami, Dade County, Florida, for licensure as an FBCH maternity foster home. The persons to be placed in that residence as the foster parents would care for five pregnant children between the ages of 11 and 17, with the provision that for a period of time after giving birth, their babies could also reside in that home. The average length of stay of clients in FBCH maternity foster homes is 3 1/2 - 4 months. Petitioner lives directly across the street from the residence the Department intends to license as a maternity foster home. Petitioner fears that the constant turnover of five pregnant teenagers will interfere with his right to quiet repose, will cause his neighborhood to be besieged by crime, and would, therefore, impair his and his neighbors' ability to detect and control criminal activity in the neighborhood.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioners' foster home license should be denied on the basis that the abuse registry examined during the re-licensure process disclosed a verified finding of abandonment of a child, recorded against the Petitioners as perpetrators, under authority of Section 409.175(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners were licensed as a foster home and sometime in the latter part of 1999, their licensure came due for renewal. They were advised by a denial letter dated October 8, 1999, from the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), that their home would not be re-licensed as a foster home. The initial agency decision to this effect was because the Petitioners, or at least Mr. Barnes, had an entry on the Department's abuse registry indicating a verified finding of abandonment against the Petitioners. The finding of abandonment involved the Petitioners' adopted son, D.B., being left at the office of the Department's foster care staff. Apparently the Barnes had had a great deal of trouble with D.B.'s behavior and had been unable to constructively discipline him and improve his behavior. This apparently made them very frustrated such that on March 26, 1999, Mr. Barnes called the Department regarding D.B., to inform the Department that they were simply unable to handle the child. Mr. Barnes talked to James Grant, supervisor of the foster care unit in the Department's Ocala office, and a witness for the Department in this case. Mr. Grant offered to provide assistance to the family to help resolve the issues between the Petitioners and their child. That offer of assistance was refused, however. Later that day, Mr. Barnes took D.B. to the Ocala offices of the Department's foster care unit and apparently left him sitting in the lobby of the building which houses the foster care staff. Mr. Barnes did not speak to Mr. Grant or anyone else in a responsible position before leaving the building and permanently abandoning the child. He only informed the receptionist that he was leaving the child. Because of the Petitioners' actions in leaving the child sitting in the lobby, a call was placed to the abuse hotline that same day. Joanne Hunter was assigned as the investigator of the abuse report. According to the final report of the investigation that was admitted into evidence, the case was closed with a verified indication of abandonment and neglect, the result of D.B. being abandoned in the Department's lobby. On March 27, 1999, a shelter hearing was held before a circuit judge and D.B. was placed in the custody of the Department due to the Petitioner's act of abandonment at the Department's office. Subsequently, the child was adjudicated dependent and placed in a long-term foster care placement. The child remained in that foster care placement at the time of the instant hearing. Certified copies of the judge's shelter order and the order of adjudication and disposition have been entered into evidence in this case. Prior to their adoption by the Petitioners, D.B. and his two siblings had been abused and neglected by their natural parents. They had, therefore, been placed in foster care by the Department. D.B.'s natural parents' parental rights had been terminated because of the uncorrected and continuing abuse and neglect of D.B. and his two siblings. The Petitioners had adopted D.B. and his two siblings. Children who have been abused and neglected or abandoned by their parents are especially vulnerable and require the greatest degree of stability in their home life that is possible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying the re-licensure of the Petitioners as a licensed family foster home. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Billie and Willie Mae Barnes 15606 Southwest 27th Avenue Road Ocala, Florida 34473 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 43785 Virginia A. Daire, 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 In this case Petitioner seeks to revoke the Respondents' foster home license premised upon allegations set forth in a complaint letter dated September 27, 1991 and under authority found in Section 409.175, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold a family foster home license issued pursuant to Section 409.175, Florida Statutes. That license expires in April, 1992. (The Respondents had been initially issued a license for the period April 1990 through April 1991.) The license was issued following rigorous training provided to the wife Jean Burgett and a more abbreviated explanation of the responsibilities of foster parents that was provided to the husband, Richard Burgett. The wife is principally responsible for providing foster care under the terms of the license in that the husband's employment requires him to be away from the home frequently. It is the conduct by the wife that has subjected the license issued for the foster home at 17 Teak Course, Ocala, Florida to be placed in jeopardy premised upon allegations set forth in the complaint letter dated September 27, 1991. In the initial training received by Jean Burgett and in the renewal of the license which took place in April 1991, Jean Burgett was made aware of Petitioner's disciplinary policy concerning children placed in foster care. That policy is especially important given the nature of the children who were placed with the Burgetts. The background of those children was that of young people who were abused, neglected or dependent. The initial training which Ms. Burgett was subjected to concerning matters of discipline was a setting in which the general emphasis was that of positive reinforcement of the children in an effort to promote self esteem and eventually gain control over any aberrant behavior and this general emphasis was tied into a more discrete block of training which was a three hour presentation on disciplinary matters. In furtherance of this instruction Jean Burgett was provided the Petitioner's policy manual which spoke to matters of discipline. In addition the Burgetts were made aware of the need to ensure confidentiality concerning the background of the children who were placed with them as it pertained to protections set out in Section 415.513(2), Florida Statutes. By this agreement the Respondents promised not to willfully or knowingly make public or disclose information that was contained in the child abuse registry or records of any child abuse case and to hold that information that came to the attention and knowledge of the Burgetts as privileged and confidential and not subject to disclosure to anyone other than authorized persons. In agreeing to the terms set forth in the family foster home license Mrs. Burgett was made aware that the children in her care as a foster parent were not to be subjected to corporal punishment. Emphasis was placed on the need to promote self-esteem and the importance of this attempt because of the nature of the background of the children and the trauma that the children had been subjected to. An explanation was made to Mrs. Burgett that she was to be gentle and that she was to build up the self-esteem in the children as opposed to tearing down their self esteem. A great deal of time was spent in the training in that Mrs. Burgett had revealed that she was the subject of harsh discipline as a child and had noted her concerns about what was described as the "soft approach" to discipline contemplated by the Petitioner. Nonetheless, Mrs. Burgett agreed to undertake the methods contemplated by the Petitioner in dealing with disciplinary matters associated with foster children in her charge. The complaint letter speaks of a general lack of judgment on the part of Mrs. Burgett concerning care of the children that were placed with her under the foster care program and the fact that the Petitioner's staff had participated in discussions with Mrs. Burgett about this problem. These observations are accurate for reasons which will be described below related to particular inappropriate conduct Mrs. Burgett is held accountable for. One incident involved a four year old boy, Bucky, who had been placed with the Burgetts for foster care, in particular it was respite care from a shelter. That child had been undergoing toilet training and had been taken out of diapers and placed in what is referred to as "big boy pants" before he came to stay with Mrs. Burgett. Apparently for matters of her convenience she changed that regime and placed the child back in diapers. He resisted and went into a tantrum. Mrs. Burgett's response to that conduct was inappropriate and contrary to the training which she had received from Petitioner concerning responses to those episodes by a child. Mrs. Burgett threw the child on the bed striking his head and covered the child up with a pillow and placed herself on top of that pillow as a means of controlling the child. Mrs. Burgett was counseled by Patricia Gilman, an employee with Petitioner, concerning the inappropriate nature of this conduct. In December 1990 Tina 16, Tracy 9, Trevor 7 and an infant Jordan were in foster care with Mrs. Burgett. Mrs. Burgett and the children had been to "Toys R Us" and in the course of that trip Tracy and Trevor caused a scene in the toy store. Mrs. Burgett responded to this situation by returning the children to her vehicle and proceeding to a Burger King restaurant to get something to eat. While at the restaurant Trevor said something that made Tina angry and Tina responded by throwing a drink on Trevor. In the fracas Mrs. Burgett tried to restrain Trevor by putting a hand over his mouth and in struggling with her in an attempt to get away Trevor banged his head on the back of the booth. These circumstances caused the manager of the restaurant to come over to where Mrs. Burgett and the children were located and while the manager was there and other persons were watching Mrs. Burgett remarked to the manager, "these are foster children and they have been damaged." This was an inappropriate comment which would not further the underlying goal of promoting self-esteem in those children. In describing the incident Mary J. Rogers, an operations program administrator for Petitioner, said that no license disciplinary action was taken at that time because Mrs. Rogers regarded the children as difficult to deal with and thought that Mrs. Burgett had demonstrated a willingness to become an acceptable foster parent when interviewed about the December 1990 incident at Burger King by improving her approach with the children in her care. With the advent of other inappropriate conduct by the Petitioner that took place beyond the point in time the Burger King incident occurred, the Petitioner was confronted with conduct so serious as to call for revocation of the foster home license. Another incident about this time by Mrs. Burgett was attempting to counsel an 11 year old girl, Judy, who was in foster home placement with Mrs. Burgett. The subject of the counseling concerns sexual activity, and it included having the child draw male sex organs. Mrs. Rogers discussed this matter with Mrs. Burgett in December 1990 in the course of which conversation Mrs. Burgett said she was trying to help the child. Mrs. Burgett was advised that it was not appropriate for Mrs. Burgett to undertake counseling with the child because Mrs. Burgett was not qualified to do so. In the December 1990 conference concerning the performance of Mrs. Burgett as a foster parent, the Petitioner agreed with the Respondent that no teenage foster children would be placed in Mrs. Burgett's home because Mrs. Burgett acknowledged having difficulty dealing with those children. Nonetheless, such placement was made in September 1991 upon agreement by Mrs. Burgett to such placement. This involved one teenage child from another foster home in which three children had been placed. The eldest child was a 13 year old girl, Rhonda K. and the other two children were younger brothers to Rhonda K., whose ages were 8 and 4. At the time of the placement of the children from the other foster home Mrs. Burgett was caring for three other foster children, Jeremick 5, Amanda 3, and an infant. The arrangement for respite care did not work out, in part due to the manner in which the Mrs. Burgett responded to Rhonda. This led to a request by Rhonda to be removed from Mrs. Burgett's home sooner than anticipated. The reason for the placement of the three children from the other foster home concerned the need by that foster parent to tend to her dying father. Among the inappropriate actions by Mrs. Burgett concerning Rhonda was a remark to the effect that it was the child's fault that her "grandfather", meaning the father of the regular foster parent, was dying with cancer. As Rhonda described at the hearing, this remark by Mrs. Burgett "didn't make her feel good." While Rhonda was staying with Mrs. Burgett, Mrs. Burgett asked Rhonda to slash the tires of the neighbor's vehicle and spray paint that neighbor's house. This was a neighbor that Mrs. Burgett did not get along with. Whatever disagreement Mrs. Burgett had with the neighbor, it was inappropriate behavior to recruit Rhonda to pursue Mrs. Burgett's ideas of unacceptable relations with a neighbor. It taught Rhonda the wrong social skills and commended inappropriate behavior. In a couple of instances, Mrs. Burgett shown a flashlight into the bedroom window of the 4 year old twins of Theresa Kennedy, a neighbor of Mrs. Burgett. This was done in a harassing manner in the Spring or Summer of 1991. On another occasion in which Theresa Kennedy was at the house of Linda Smith, the neighbor whom Mrs. Burgett had advised Rhonda to slash the tires of the neighbor's vehicle, and paint the Smith house, Mrs. Burgett stood for several hours at the end of the driveway of the Smith home. This followed an argument at the Smith home between Mrs. Burgett and Mrs. Smith in the presence of the children, Jeremick and Amanda, which led to the sheriff's office being summoned by the Smiths. The children were then taken back to Mrs. Burgett's home and given that no other adult appeared to be in the home, and in particular Mr. Burgett, this meant that the children, Jeremick and Amanda and an infant, were left unattended for several hours. Mrs. Smith had observed Mrs. Burgett yelling at Jeremick on a number of occasions. At times Mrs. Burgett would tell Jeremick "You can't play with other children in the neighborhood because they are bad." Twice she saw Mrs. Burgett yank Jeremick by the arm. Although Mrs. Smith did not believe that this contact was sufficient to cause physical damage to the child, she was concerned about the manner in which it was done. Mrs. Rogers has observed a deterioration in Mrs. Burgett's attitude over time and an unwillingness to acknowledge that Mrs. Burgett has acted in an inappropriate way; an example being, that she denied the events that have been described relating to Rhonda or Mrs. Burgett's neighbors. In particular, Mrs. Burgett remarked that personnel with the Petitioner should believe Mrs. Burgett and not the children. Mrs. Burgett's attitude is one of hostility in the latter conference of September 13, 1991 between personnel of the Petitioner and Mrs. Burgett, in contrast to the interview of December 1990 in which a willingness had been expressed to work with the requirements incumbent upon Mrs. Burgett under Petitioner's policies on foster care. Mrs. Rogers expresses a reasonable belief that Mrs. Burgett might lose her temper and become physically abusive of the children in her care. Mrs. Burgett's attitude is one of deceit, and demonstrates an inclination to blame others for inappropriate conduct that is attributable to her.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which revokes the family foster home license of Respondents to operate and provide foster care at 17 Teak Course, Ocala, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 22 day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22 day of January, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 91-7202 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts by Petitioner: Paragraph 1 is addressed in the preliminary statement. Paragraphs 2-10 are subordinate to facts found except the last sentence which is rejected. Paragraph 11 is not pled in the complaint letter and is therefore irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected. Paragraph 14 See discussion of Paragraph 11. Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 17-28 are subordinate to facts found except in the suggestion about inappropriate household duties which is rejected and not allowing Rhonda to talk to her regular foster mother or attend school which latter facts are not in the complaint letter. Paragraph 29 is addressed in the preliminary statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire HRS-District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Richard and Jean Burgett 17 Teak Course Ocala, FL 32672 Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating foster homes. Mrs. Sampson operated a Childrens' Medical Services ("CMS") medical foster home for children with special medical, emotional and physical needs, and was licensed by the Department as either a CMS medical foster home or as a regular foster home from 1990 until November 1997. At some point in 1996 or 1997, Mrs. Sampson voluntarily ceased operating as a CMS medical foster home, but continued to operate as a regular foster home. There was conflicting evidence as to the precise date of this change, but the date is not relevant to this phase of the bifurcated proceeding. On March 2, 1998, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint that sought to revoke Mrs. Sampson's foster care license. On October 6, 1999, the Department filed an Amended Administrative Complaint. The Department also denied Mrs. Sampson's application to adopt one of the foster children in her care. Mrs. Sampson requested a formal administrative hearing on both the revocation of her foster care license and the denial of her adoption application. The cases were consolidated, and a formal administrative hearing was held over several dates in April, May, and June 2000. Mrs. Sampson prevailed on all issues in the consolidated cases. A Recommended Order in her favor was entered on August 11, 2000. A Final Order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Recommended Order was entered on October 2, 2000. Mrs. Sampson contends that she is a "small business party" as defined in Subsection 57.111(3)(d)1.a, Florida Statutes, which provides that the term "small business party" includes: A sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, including a professional practice, whose principal office is in this state, who is domiciled in this state, and whose business or professional practice has, at the time that action is initiated by a state agency, not more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2 million, including both personal and business investments. . . . At all times relevant to this case, Mrs. Sampson was domiciled in the State of Florida. At all times relevant to this case, Mrs. Sampson was licensed as a Licensed Practical Nurse ("LPN"). The determinative issue is whether Mrs. Sampson's operation of a foster home establishes her as the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business or professional practice. Mrs. Sampson initially operated her medical foster home for the benefit of one child, who was admitted to Tampa General Hospital while Mrs. Sampson worked there as a contract nurse. The child was born prematurely and was not expected to live longer than six weeks. Mrs. Sampson became a licensed foster parent to take this child home and care for him. Under her care, the child thrived. Though he survived the initial crisis, the child continued to require full-time nursing care. Mrs. Sampson was not able to return to full-time employment as a contract nurse outside the home. Mrs. Sampson testified that she advised the Department's case workers that she would need to take in additional medical foster children to supplement her income while she worked at home caring for the children. Over a period of eight years, the Department placed at least 14 medically needy foster children in Mrs. Sampson's home. The Department establishes foster home care board rates, which are standard reimbursements to foster parents for the expenses incurred for the foster children, such as food, clothing, medical care, and transportation. The board rates are minimums that can be increased by the Department if the needs of the foster child cannot otherwise be met. Mrs. Sampson received an enhanced board rate for at least some of the children in her care. The Department conducts orientation meetings for and training of prospective foster parents. The Department emphasizes that the purpose of foster parenting is to provide temporary surrogate parenting for the foster children. The prospective parents are informed that they are considered volunteers and will not be paid for their services. The parents are told that the board payments are for the childrens' expenses. Foster parents sign an agreement acknowledging that the board payments are "on behalf of the child." Rule 65C-13.011(4), Florida Administrative Code, expressly provides that substitute care parents must have sufficient income to assure the stability and security of their own families without reliance on the board payments, and that the substitute family must have sufficient income to absorb four to six weeks of a foster child's care before receiving a board payment. If the Department removes a child from a foster home, the board payment to the foster payment ceases. If the child is placed with a new foster parent, then the board payment goes to the new foster parent. In addition to the regular and enhanced board payments, a CMS medical foster parent may receive payments from Medicaid as reimbursement for medically necessary services rendered to the foster children. Mrs. Sampson was a designated Medicaid provider from April 1992 through March 1997. Mrs. Sampson contended that these Medicaid payments were for the nursing services she provided to the children, just as physicians receive Medicaid payments for treatment of eligible patients. However, medical foster parents are not required to be licensed medical professionals. Mrs. Sampson offered no evidence that the Medicaid payments were for her services as an LPN, or that private, residential LPN services even qualify for Medicaid reimbursement absent prior authorization. CMS-administered medical foster care services are authorized for Medicaid reimbursement, and the best evidence is that Mrs. Sampson was reimbursed as a medical foster care provider, not as an LPN. The Department established that Mrs. Sampson did not hold herself out as running a business, nor did she report as income on her federal tax return the payments received in connection with providing foster care. Mrs. Sampson testified that she hired part-time employees to assist her in caring for the children, but she did not withhold federal income tax or Social Security taxes from their pay and did not file W-2 wage statements for them. Mrs. Sampson explained her failure to report her board payments as income by reference to 26 U.S.C. s. 131, which excludes foster care payments from reportable gross income. This citation justifies her failure to report, but also supports the Department's contention that foster care payments should not be considered business income. Mrs. Sampson implicitly conceded that her foster home did not possess any of the common indicia of a business. Her chief contention was that from 1970 to 1990, she worked as an LPN through nursing agencies, caring for sick children in hospitals or in their homes, and that from 1990 to 1997, she worked as an LPN caring for medical foster children in her own home. In other words, Mrs. Sampson contended that by operating the foster home, she was continuing to practice her profession in a different setting. She gave up the income from her practice as an LPN through nursing agencies in favor of the income she received as an LPN acting as a medical foster parent.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the foster care license of Joe and Fatima Landon.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the home of Joe and Fatima Landon was licensed by the Department of Children and Family Services as a foster home, having been issued License No. 0900-17 by the Department. On January 31, 2001, the Department received a report alleging that a child in the Landons' care, K.N.F., had two scrapes on her left hand that might constitute abuse. As a result of these allegations, Harvey Clark and Kevin Daniels, Child Protective Investigators employed by the Department, went to the Landons' home on the day of the alleged incident to investigate. Deputy Steven Parker of the Clay County Sheriff's Office also went to the Landons' to investigate. At the time of the hearing, K.N.F. was seven years old. She recalled that on the day of the incident, Mrs. Landon was driving her and another foster child to school. K.N.F. was reading in the back seat of the van. K.N.F. was trying to sound out the words and was unable to sound them out properly. Mrs. Landon turned around and Mrs. Landon's hand hit K.N.F.'s hand. K.N.F. described the incident as follows, "She turned around. And I was holding my hand on the book. She was going to point to the word, but my hand was there." She perceived Mrs. Landon to be angry, but also thought that Mrs. Landon was pointing to the word and hit her hand by accident.2 K.N.F. was referred to the Child Protection Team for an examination of her injury. She was examined by Dr. Bruce J. McIntosh. Dr. McIntosh found two abrasions, or scrapes, on the back of her left hand near the thumb. It was Dr. McIntosh's opinion that the abrasions were inconsistent with the injury being an accident in that one would not be pointing at something with "such force and velocity" to produce two abrasions to the hand. Notwithstanding Dr. McIntosh's testimony, the abrasions are best described in the photographs taken the day of the incident which reveal two small reddish abrasions on K.N.F.'s left hand. The evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Mrs. Landon reaching around to K.N.F. caused the abrasions on K.N.F.'s hand. Dr. McIntosh determined that the abrasions did not require specific treatment. However, he recommended that K.N.F. and the other foster child in the car be removed from the Landons because it was his impression that the children were afraid of Mrs. Landon. This impression was based primarily on statements made to him by K.N.F. and the other foster child during his examination, which are hearsay. K.N.F. and the other foster children were then removed from the Landons' home by the Department. At the time of the incident, Tanya Lee was employed by the Jacksonville Youth Sanctuary, a private organization contracted by the Department to provide foster care services, as a foster care case worker. She was the case worker for the two other foster children in the Landons' home. She visited the home frequently and found a happy, stable environment. She found the Landons to be very supportive and nurturing of the foster children including what she witnessed with K.N.F. during her home visits. Ms. Lee conducted exit interviews of the children for whom she was the case worker when they were removed from the home after the incident. It was her impression that the children felt safe in the Landons' home and wanted to be placed back with the Landons. This impression was based on the statements made by the children during the exit interviews and are hearsay.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order rescinding its revocation of the Landons' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners should be issued a family foster home license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony, exhibits, and stipulated facts in the Joint Stipulation, the following Findings of Fact are made: Parties and Process Petitioners, who are husband and wife, submitted an application for licensure as a family foster home. Although this was an application for initial licensure, Petitioners were previously licensed as a foster home from August 2013 to October 2019.1 The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing foster care parents and foster homes, pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-45. Petitioners voluntarily relinquished their foster home license on or about October 28, 2019, around the time two female foster children, S.W. and H.C.S., were removed from their care. It is unclear whether the children were removed because of an abuse investigation related to H.C.S., or whether they were removed because Petitioners closed their home to foster children. Regardless, Mrs. Gilio testified that they let their license lapse because they needed a break after fostering H.C.S. The Department administers foster care licensing by contracting with third-party private entities. In Circuit 13, where Petitioners are located, the Department contracted with Eckerd Community Alternatives, doing business as Eckerd Connects (Eckerd), to be the agency responsible for facilitating foster care licensing. Eckerd has subcontracted with Children's Home Network (CHN) to facilitate foster care licensing. 1 Petitioners had previously been denied a foster care license in 2009. At the time relevant to Petitioners, the Department used the "attestation" model of foster home licensing. In this model, a private licensing agency with whom the Department has contracted will conduct a home study on the foster home applicants and attest to the applicants' fitness to be licensed. The Department does not have the discretion to deny the license once the licensing agency has attested to the appropriateness of the applicants, except if they have been named as caregivers in three or more abuse reports within five years. If there are such abuse reports, the Department is required to review those reports and make a final decision regarding the application. There is no requirement that the reports result in a finding of actual abuse for them to be reviewed by the Department.2 Although it is unclear when Petitioners submitted their application for the foster care license in this case, sometime in late 2019, CHN conducted and compiled a Unified Home Study (home study), which included Petitioners' background screening; previous reports of abuse, abandonment, or neglect involving the applicants, and references from all adult children. The home study was reviewed at a meeting on December 19, 2019, by Eckerd, through the Committee. The Committee considered the application, home study, and licensing packet and heard from various agency staff. Petitioners were also allowed to voice comments and concerns at this meeting. Had the Committee approved the application, it would have been sent to the Department along with an attestation that stated the foster home meets all requirements for licensure and a foster home license is issued by the Department. However, the Committee unanimously voted not to recommend approval of a foster home license to Petitioners. 2 The categories of findings for an abuse report are "no indicator," "not substantiated," and "verified." "No indicator" means there was no credible evidence to support a determination of abuse. "Not substantiated" means there is evidence, but it does not meet the standard of being a preponderance to support that a specific harm is the result of abuse. "Verified" means that there is a preponderance of credible evidence which results in a determination that a specific harm was a result of abuse. Frank Prado, Suncoast Regional Managing Director for the Department, ultimately decided to deny Petitioners' application for a family foster home license due to their prior parenting experiences, the multiple abuse reports regarding their home, and the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Prado expressed concern about the nature of the abuse reports and Petitioners' admission that they used corporal punishment on a child they adopted from the foster care system in the presence of other foster children. Petitioners' Parenting History Petitioners have seven children: one is the biological son of Mr. Gilio; another is the biological son of Mrs. Gilio; and five were adopted through the foster care system in Florida. Of these seven children, six are now adults. Three of the adopted children, Jay, Sean, and Jameson, are biological brothers who Petitioners adopted in 2001. Shawna, who was adopted around 2003, is the only adopted daughter. The Petitioners' one minor child, H.G., is a nine-year-old boy and the only child who resides in their home. H.G. suffers from oppositional defiance disorder. Petitioners admitted they adopted Shawna after there had been allegations of inappropriate behavior made against Jay, by a young girl who lived next door to Petitioners. Later, while they were living with Petitioners, Jay, Sean, and Jameson were arrested for sexually abusing Shawna at different times. As a result, one or more of the sons were court-ordered to not be around Shawna, and the other brothers were required to undergo treatment and never returned to Petitioners' home. During the hearing, both Petitioners seem to blame Shawna, who was nine years old when the sexual abuse by Jay in their home allegedly began, for disrupting their home. They accused her of being "not remorseful" and "highly sexualized." Regarding the abuse by Sean and Jameson, which occurred when Shawna was approximately 12 years old, Mr. Gilio stated Shawna thought it was okay to have sex with boys, and it was "hard to watch every minute of the day if they're, you know, having sex." When Shawna was about 19 years old, she filed a "Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence" against Mr. Gilio in circuit court. The Petition outlined allegations of past sexual comments and inappropriate disciplinary behavior from 2007 to 2012, while she lived with Petitioners. Mr. Gilio denied at the hearing having any knowledge about the Petition against him, but admitted he made comments about Shawna's breasts. As part of the application and home study process, the CHN collected references from Petitioners' former foster children and adult children. Shawna (Petitioners' only adopted daughter) gave them a negative reference and specifically stated she would not want female foster children to live with Petitioners. Reports of Abuse Petitioners were involved in 24 abuse reports during their time of licensure between 2013 and 2019. During the past five years, Petitioners were named as either alleged perpetrators or caregivers responsible in eight reports that were made to the Florida Child Abuse Hotline (Hotline). Of those eight reports, five of them named Mr. Gilio as the alleged perpetrator causing a physical injury, one report named Mr. Gilio as the caregiver responsible for a burn on a foster child, and one report named Mr. Gilio as an alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse against a foster child. Mrs. Gilio was named as an alleged perpetrator of asphyxiation as to a foster child. Seven of the reports in the last five years against Petitioners were closed with no indicators of abuse. One of the abuse reports was closed with a "not substantiated" finding of physical injury. In this report, Mr. Gilio was the alleged perpetrator and the victim was H.G., Petitioners' minor adopted son. Additionally, after Petitioners let their foster license lapse in October 2019, a subsequent report was made against Mr. Gilio for improper contact with a former foster daughter. This incident was discussed at the Committee meeting, but it was unclear if this allegation was ever investigated. Corporal Punishment According to the Department's rules, discussed below, foster parents are forbidden to engage in corporal punishments of any kind. In 2019, there were two reports alleging Mr. Gilio of causing physical injury by corporal punishment on H.G. At the time, there were other foster children in the household. Technically, Mr. Gilio was allowed to use corporal punishment on H.G. because he was no longer a foster child and had been adopted from foster care. If a parent uses corporal punishment on a child, there can be no findings of abuse unless the child suffered temporary or permanent disfigurement. However, foster care providers are not permitted to use corporal punishment. More than one witness at the hearing had concerns about the use of corporal punishment against H.G. because of his operational defiance disorder and because other foster children (who may have been victims of physical abuse) were in the household. Brendale Perkins, who is a foster parent herself and serves on the Hillsborough County Family Partnership Alliance, an organization that supports licensed foster parents, testified she witnessed Mr. Gilio treating a foster child in his care roughly. At the time, she was concerned because this was not the way children in foster care (who may have previously been victims of abuse) should be treated. She did not, however, report it to any authorities. The Department established through testimony that the policy against using corporal punishment is taught to all potential foster families. Mr. Gilio, however, denied ever being instructed not to use corporal punishment against foster children or while foster children were in the home. He also claimed that H.G.'s therapist had never recommended any specific punishment techniques. The undersigned finds Mr. Gilio's testimony not credible. Cooperation with Fostering Partners The Department established that decisions regarding foster children are made within a "system of care" which includes input from case managers, guardian ad litem (GAL), and support service providers. The relationship between Petitioners and others working as part of this system during the time of fostering was not ideal; it was described by witnesses as "tense" and "disgruntled." One witness, a supervisor at CHN, testified Mr. Gilio was not receptive or flexible when partnering with other agencies, and was not always open to providing information when questioned. As an example, Petitioners fired a therapist without consulting with the CHN staff or the GAL for the child. At the final hearing, Mr. Gilio continued to claim he did nothing wrong by not consulting with others in the system regarding this decision. Kristin Edwardson, a child protection investigator for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, was tasked with investigating the reports of abuse and neglect against Petitioners that had been reported to the Hotline. She testified she was concerned with the level of cooperation they provided her and other investigators. Although they ultimately would cooperate, Petitioners made it difficult for the investigators and would often "push back" and make the situation more stressful. She described Mr. Gilio as being disrespectful, belittling, and dismissive of her. Licensing Review Committee On December 19, 2020, the Committee, made up of eight individuals, was convened to review Petitioners' application for a foster home license. When determining whether a family should receive a foster home license, the Committee is to evaluate the applicants' background, parenting experience, references from community partners, and the family's openness and willingness to partner. Sheila DelCastillo, a regional trainer with the GAL program, was a Committee member. She had prior knowledge of Petitioners from a report that a foster child's room in Petitioners' home smelled strongly of urine during a home visit and that GAL staff had found a prescription bottle beside the child’s bed that belonged to Mr. Gilio. With regards to Petitioners' application, she read the licensing review packet and home study that contained numerous abuse reports. Ms. DelCastillo was concerned about the 24 abuse reports Petitioners’ received during their time of licensure, the negative reference from Shawna, their use of corporal punishment on H.G., and Petitioners' downplaying of the events that led to multiple abuse reports. Michelle Costley, a licensing director with CHN in charge of level 2 traditional foster homes, also served on the Committee. Ms. Costley has 14 years of experience, with seven of those years spent in foster care licensing. As director of licensing, Ms. Costley was concerned about the number of abuse reports received regarding Petitioners; Mr. Gilio's inability to be open and flexible when working in partnership with other agencies; and the needs of Petitioners' child, H.G. She was also concerned about Petitioners' decision to fire a therapist of a foster child without consulting the GAL or the other individuals involved with that child. Regarding the alleged abuse, Ms. Costley was concerned that most of the reports regarding Petitioners involved allegations of physical abuse, inappropriate touch of a sexual nature, or sexual abuse, with most alleged victims being younger than eight years old. She explained that even though these reports could not be "verified," these types of allegations are harder to establish because testimony by children of that age often is unreliable and there usually must be evidence of physical injury, which no longer is present by the time the alleged abuse is investigated. Ms. Perkins also served on the Committee. Ms. Perkins served as a foster parent mentor, working with foster parents to help them build co- parenting strategies and navigate the system of care. She has been a licensed foster parent for 13 years and has adopted 11 children from foster care. As stated earlier, she was familiar with Petitioners from the Hillsborough County Family Partnership Alliance meetings. Ms. Perkins was concerned with the number of abuse reports with similar allegations, but different victims. She also discussed Petitioners' use of corporal punishment, noting that they could have been using verbal de-escalation methods instead of corporal punishment due to the traumatic histories of many foster care children. Ms. Edwardson also served on the Committee. In addition to her personal interactions with Petitioners, Ms. Edwardson was concerned about the totality of the information presented to the Committee regarding the abuse reports and Mr. Gilio's lack of cooperation. She noted that although they were not substantiated, the number and nature of the reports related to young children were of concern. Based on the Committee notes and transcript of the meeting, Petitioners were allowed to respond to the Committee's questions at the December 2019 meeting. They argued that none of the abuse reports were proven true and any injuries were not their fault. They seemed more concerned about who made the abuse reports and why the abuse reports were called in than whether the foster children were protected in their care. For example, although Mr. Gilio admitted to hitting H.G. with a stick twice as big as a pencil, he denied any bruising was caused by the stick. A report of a burn on another child was explained by Mr. Gilio as an accident that occurred while he was teaching her how to iron; he could not understand why this was reported as possible abuse. Ms. Gilio explained that H.C.S. was a very active child which resulted in her needing stitches and requiring restraint. After hearing from Petitioners, the Committee members discussed their concerns that Petitioners were not forthcoming about the various abuse incidents, and would not take responsibility for any of the injuries or issues raised by the abuse reports. All eight members voted to not move Petitioners' application forward.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families denying a family foster home license to Petitioners, Mary and James Gilio. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 9th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Duran, Esquire Tison Law Group 9312 North Armenia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 (eServed) Deanne Cherisse Fields, Esquire Department of Children and Families 9393 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 (eServed) Lacey Kantor, Esquire Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Javier A. Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioners' application for renewal of their family foster home license should be denied on the grounds set forth in the October 17, 1997, letter that they received from the Department of Children and Family Services (Department). 1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners' Household Petitioners are husband and wife. They live in a four- bedroom home in Riviera Beach, Florida. Mrs. Wright and her husband have eleventh and twelfth grade educations, respectively. Mr. Wright has been semi-retired for four or five years, and he receives social security payments. To supplement this income, he works on a regular basis as a gardener. Mrs. Wright is a homemaker. Petitioners have six natural children, all of whom are adults and live outside of Petitioners' home. Petitioners also have two adopted children, both of whom live with Petitioners. Their adopted son, Bertain, is 17 years of age. Tracy Michelle, their adopted daughter, is approximately five years younger than Bertain. There are two other current members of Petitioners' household, Tmorris C. and Tavares T., the young sons of one of Petitioners' daughters. Tmorris and Tavares were taken from their mother and placed in Petitioners' custody by the Department in 1996, when Tmorris was approximately 11 months old and Tavares was almost two years of age. Petitioners' Record as Family Foster Home Licensees Petitioners are seeking the renewal of a family foster home license that they were first issued in 1977. In the 19 years that they operated a licensed family foster home, Petitioners cared for many foster children, including those with special needs. They treated their foster children in the same loving and caring manner that they treated their own children, and provided them with a reasonably safe and nurturing environment. At no time during the period that they operated their family foster home did the Department or its predecessor initiate any action to effect the revocation of Petitioners' license. Petitioners were last relicensed in 1996, pursuant to the recommendation of Jo Ann Weisiger, a Children and Families relicensing counselor who issued the following report after conducting a relicensing home study: AGENCY EXPERIENCE Mr. and Mrs. Wright were initially licensed on 09/26/77. COMPOSITION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE HOME The Wrights reside in Riviera Beach, just north of 8th Street, near schools, churches and other health and recreational facilities. Mr. Wright is painting the interior of the house. Current residents of the home are Sam Wright, age 73; Ruby Wright, age 62; adopted daughter, Tracy Michelle Wright, age 10; and son Berta[i]n, 14. There have been no major changes in the household during the past year. FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE HOME/QUALITY OF LIFE During the past year, the Wrights have cared for 16 foster children. There are currently 6 foster children in the home; Julius [H.], 5; Robert [D.], 7; Kenneth [J.], 7; Sheanna [W.], 7; Steven [W.], 6; and Amanda [W.], 4. There have been issues arising concerning allegations of physical discipline in the home, but none of these could be substantiated. The children have been appropriately clothed during licensing visits. Mrs. Wright responds to school concerns and transports to medical appointments. During a visit to the home on 3/20/96, the children all responded affectionately to the foster parents, and seemed happy and adequately cared for in this home. The children have been interviewed on two separate occasions and showed no fear of the foster parents, no signs of marks or bruises, and made no statements indicating that they have been spanked. The two older Willis children have severe developmental and emotional problems, and the Wrights have requested that they be replaced as soon as possible. They are difficult to handle, and inappropriately placed in this home. EMPLOYMENT/FINACES Mr. Wright is retired and the Wrights receive $1600.00 in Social Security and retirement income. They appear to manage their finances adequately. HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE Although Mr. Wright is in his seventies, he is active and involved with the children. Sanitation inspection on 2/21/96 was satisfactory. IN-SERVICE TRAINING Both foster parents completed Mini Mapp on 5/17/95. They will have 7 hours in this relicensing period, and attended the MAPP 11 training on 2/20/96 for an additional 3 hours. REFERENCES/SCREENING Local and PBSO law enforcement checks showed no records for the Wrights, and the Abuse Registry check was clear. Mr. Wright has been re-screened for fingerprints, as the original fingerprint records were lost from 1987. There are no new household members. No staff inquiries were returned, but there have been no major concerns expressed by any of the counselors who visit the home. The concerns about spanking the children have been addressed, and there is no indication that the Wrights are using inappropriate discipline. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS Relicense for 3 children, school age. Due to Mr. Wright's age, over capacity should be avoided whenever possible. In early 1996, as part of the license renewal process, Petitioners signed an "Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for Dependent Children." In so doing, they agreed to, among other things, the following: We are fully and directly responsible to the department for the care of the child. . . . We will accept the above board rate per month [$185.00] on behalf of the child in accordance with the department's established uniform rate structure for dependent children. . . . 15. We will comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the department. . . . Petitioners last had foster children in their home in December of 1996. At that time only three of the six foster children mentioned in Ms. Weisiger's report remained in the home. Sheanna W., Steven W., and Amanda W. had been placed elsewhere at Petitioners' request. The Department's Allegations: What the Evidence Shows Specific Allegations in the October 17, 1997, Denial Letter Alleged Lack of Interest in Educational Needs Petitioners took an interest in the educational needs of their foster children. They asked their foster children, on a regular basis, if they had homework and, if the children responded in the affirmative, made sure that the children did their homework. Petitioners themselves did not assist the children in completing homework assignments, but, if the children needed such assistance, Petitioners made arrangements for other members of the family (who were better equipped to provide assistance) to help the children. Kenneth J. is the foster child referred to in the second and third sentences of the paragraph of the October 17, 1997, denial letter detailing Petitioners' alleged "[l]ack of interest in [their foster] children's educational needs" (Education Paragraph). If in fact Kenneth told a counselor that Petitioners ignored his request for help in completing the assignment referred to in the second and third sentences of this paragraph, 3/ Kenneth was not being truthful. If Kenneth did not receive any assistance at home on this project, it was only because he did not let Petitioners know that he needed help. He invariably told Petitioners, when asked by them about his homework, either that he had done his homework at school, or that he knew how to do it without anyone's help. The foster child involved in the "permission slip" incident discussed in the fourth sentence of the Education Paragraph was actually Robert D., not Kenneth J. (as the paragraph suggests). Although Robert's teacher may have sent home with him a form for Petitioners to sign to permit Robert to go on a class trip, Robert never presented the form to Petitioners. Instead, he told Mrs. Wright that he had lost the form. Mrs. Wright advised Robert to ask his teacher for another permission slip. The next morning, Robert's teacher telephoned Petitioners and spoke with Mrs. Wright about Robert's failure to hand in a signed permission slip. Mrs. Wright explained to the teacher that Robert had told her that he had lost the permission slip he had been given to take home. The teacher advised Mrs. Wright that she would send Petitioners another permission slip for them to sign. Upon receiving this second permission slip, Mrs. Wright signed it and returned it to the teacher, and Robert thus was able to go on the trip. Julius H. is the foster child who, according to the fifth sentence of the Education Paragraph, allegedly had accumulated in his book bag four weeks worth of papers that were "sent home" with him. Julius was in kindergarten at the time. Mrs. Wright actually saw these papers that Julius had brought home from school with him (in his book bag) during this four-week period. After Mrs. Wright removed the papers from the book bag, Julius put them back in the bag, explaining to Mrs. Wright that he needed to keep the papers. Alleged General Lack of Interest in Needs of Foster Children Petitioners made a good faith effort to meet the individual needs of their foster children. Kenneth J. is the foster child referred to in the first and second sentences of the paragraph of the October 17, 1997, denial letter detailing Petitioners' alleged "general lack of interest in the individual needs of the foster children placed in [their] home" (Needs Paragraph). It is true that, at first, Petitioners did not have a Medicaid card for Kenneth, as alleged in this portion of the Needs Paragraph. There is, however, no truth to the assertion that, because they did not have his Medicaid card, Petitioners did not get the vitamins that had been prescribed for Kenneth. In fact, they purchased the vitamins with their own funds. Furthermore, Mrs. Wright told Kenneth's counselor, the next time she saw the counselor, that she did not have Kenneth's Medicaid card. Robert D. is the foster child referred to in the third sentence of the Needs Paragraph. Mrs. Wright did in fact learn that Robert had been playing with fire, as this sentence suggests. There, however, was only one such incident (not three) and it occurred, not in the home, but outside of the home in an area where Robert was playing with other children. One of the other children alerted Mrs. Wright, and she went outside to investigate. When she arrived at the scene, the fire was already out. Mrs. Wright spoke with Robert about the matter. He promised not to play with fire again, and he kept his promise. There were no subsequent incidents. Following the incident, Mrs. Wright telephoned Robert's counselor and told the counselor what Robert had done. The Restraining Order against Bertain In August of 1996, Bertain was involved in a dispute with Robert D.'s and Julius H.'s brother, Jessie S., who lived across the street from Petitioners' home. The dispute concerned a girl that Bertain and Jessie both liked. Before the dispute arose, Bertain and Jessie were good friends. The dispute caused a rift in their relationship and it escalated to the point where Jessie's aunt, with whom Jessie has living at the time, sought and obtained (on Jessie's behalf) a restraining order (dated August 26, 1996) against Bertain, which provided as follows: THIS CAUSE came to be heard on August 14, 1996 upon Petitioner's application for an Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence pursuant to Section 784.046, Florida Statutes, and it appearing that an immediate and present danger of Repeat Violence exists, and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent: RUBY WRIGHT O/B/O BERTAIN WRIGHT (MINOR CHILD) is hereby restrained and enjoined from committing any acts of violence, to wit: assault, battery, sexual battery or stalking on the Petitioner: ANNA WHITE & ANNA WHITE O/B/O JESSIE [S.](MINOR CHILD) or any member of Petitioner's immediate family. The Respondent is restrained from threatening the Petitioner or any member of the Petitioner's immediate family, either directly or indirectly, at any time or place whatsoever. Respondent shall not enter on Petitioner's residential premises . . ., or wherever Petitioner may reside in the State of Florida. Respondent shall not enter onto Petitioner's place of employment . . ., or wherever Petitioner may be employed in the State of Florida. Upon Petitioner's request an officer from an appropriate law enforcement agency shall accompany the Petitioner and assist in the execution of service of the Injunction. The following provisions are necessary to protect the Petitioner from Repeat Violence. THE PARTIES SHALL HAVE NO CONTACT IN PERSON, DIRECT OR INDIRET, BY PHONE, BY MAIL, BY THIRD PERSONS, EXCEPT BY COURT ORDER, AT COURT APPEARANCES OR THROUGH ATTORNEYS. Any relief granted by this Injunction shall be effective for a period not to exceed months form the date hereof. The Petitioner may petition the court for extension of provisions of this Injunction prior to the conclusion of the period specified herein. The Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this Injunction to the Sheriff with jurisdiction over the residence of the Petitioner within twenty-four (24) hours after its entry. THIS INJUNCTION IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE IN ALL COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. This was the first and last time that Bertain was involved in any legal proceeding concerning his conduct. Bertain's dispute with Jessie did not interfere with Bertain's relationship with Robert and Julius. Bertain continued to get along well with both Robert and Julius, notwithstanding the dispute. Mrs. Wright discussed the subject of the dispute and the resulting restraining order with Mary Bosco, a Department administrator involved in the licensure of family foster homes. During the conversation, Mrs. Wright told Ms. Bosco that she (Mrs. Wright) was doing her "best with Bertain," but she could not go everywhere that Bertain went, a comment that should not be construed to reflect negatively upon Mrs. Wright as a parent. It would be unreasonable to expect a parent to accompany a teenage son the age of Bertain (at the time of Mrs. Wright's conversation with Ms. Bosco) everywhere the son went. There has been no showing that Petitioners have acted irresponsibly in discharging their responsibilities as Bertain's parents. Other Specific Allegations In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department asserts that "Petitioners exhibited poor judgment in allowing the children (T. C. [Tmorris] and T. T. [Tavares]) named in F.P.S.S. #96-125319 to spend time unsupervised with their mother." The evidence establishes, however, that when Petitioners (specifically, Mrs. Wright) brought Tmorris and Tavares to visit their mother (which visits the judge in the dependency proceeding encouraged), Mrs. Wright remained with the boys for the duration of the visit. The Department also states in its Proposed Recommended Order that "Department counselors had to 'beg' Petitioners to cooperate in providing services to the foster children." Although the Department does not identify the children to whom it is making reference, it appears that the Department is referring to Tmorris and Tavares, who technically are not Petitioners' foster children inasmuch as Petitioners are their grandparents and do not receive reimbursement for caring for them. 4/ In any event, the evidence does not support the Department's assertion concerning Petitioners' reluctance to ensure that their grandchildren (while in their care) received needed services. Rather, it appears that, when Petitioners became aware of the children's need for services, they acted in a reasonable and responsible manner. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department further alleges that "[a]t one time Petitioner[s] requested that their own grandchildren be removed from their home due to the fact that they were no longer receiving foster care payments for them." Mrs. Wright did initially become upset when she learned that she and her husband would not be receiving any payments from the State for caring for Tmorris and Tavares. She then "thought differently about the matter" and realized that she and her husband had made the right decision in agreeing to assume responsibility for caring for their grandchildren, notwithstanding that they would not be paid for doing so. The additional allegation is made in the Department's Proposed Recommended Order that "Petitioners failed to provide appropriate educational and recreational activities for the children [who lived in their home] and lack the capacity to do so." According to the Department, the children spent "the majority of their hours watching television." The evidence, however, reveals otherwise. Petitioners provided the children with bicycles to ride and games to play. They went fishing with them and took them to the park on a regular basis. Whenever Petitioners went to visit relatives, the children accompanied them. Living with Petitioners did not result in the children being deprived of appropriate educational or recreational activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order declining to deny Petitioners' application for renewal of their family foster home license on the grounds set forth in October 17, 1997, letter that they received from the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1998.
