The Issue Whether Respondent's foster home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Azulphar had a foster home license issued by the Department. Ms. Azulphar became a foster parent in January 1999. As with all new foster parents, Ms. Azulphar was required to complete 30 hours of Model Approach to Partnership Parenting (MAPP) training. Among other things, the MAPP training involves discussions regarding duties and responsibilities of a foster parent, the sexual problems of foster care children, and what to do if a foster care child runs away. Ms. Azulphar and the Department entered into a Bilateral Service Agreement regarding foster care. Both of them agreed to abide by the terms of the Bilateral Service Agreement. The Bilateral Service Agreement provided, among other things, the following: The Department's responsibilities to the foster parents include: * * * j. Support will be shown by responding within 24 hours to telephone messages, written correspondence or any other requests the foster parents may have. * * * Commitment to the Child The decision to accept a child into the home is a major one. . . Most foster children have experienced severe emotional, sexual and/or physical abuse as well as trauma. It is not unusual for children who have been sexually abused to act out in sexual inappropriate ways. Foster parents must be aware that these children need extra monitoring, teaching and showing of appropriate affection in order to grow into healthy children. . . By accepting a child into the home, the foster parent(s) agree to the following responsibilities: * * * d. To ensure that the child has supervision appropriate to his/her age and developmental level. * * * Foster parents have responsibilities and duties to both the department [sic] and the child. Responsibilities to the department [sic] include: * * * k. To notify the Department immediately if a child runs away, is missing or does not return home, even if the foster parent knows where the child is. * * * s. To know where and with whom the child is staying and the type of supervision the child is receiving when foster parents approve an outing or overnight activity. . . Non-compliance with any of the above provisions can result in termination of this service agreement by either the foster parents or the Department. Non-compliance with any of the above [sic] provisions may also result in the department [sic] revoking the home's license to provide foster care pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. . . . Any person living with a foster parent is subject to a background check by the Department because such person would have contact with any foster child placed with the foster parent. Such person must not have a disqualifying criminal record1 in order for the person to remain in the foster home during the licensure of the foster home. Ms. Azulphar had a tenant, Louis Bryant, who lived in an attached room to her home, which was converted from a garage. He had his own private entrance to his room. In January 2002, the Department informed Ms. Azulphar that Mr. Bryant, not only had a criminal record, but also had a disqualifying criminal drug record and that, therefore, if she wanted to keep her license, he would have to move. Ms. Azulphar informed Mr. Bryant that he had to move. Mr. Bryant moved, and Ms. Azulphar provided documentation to the Department indicating that he had moved. Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as a long-time friend and someone that she had relied upon when she first came to the United States. Mr. Bryant was also Ms. Azulphar's former supervisor. Further, even though he was a drug addict, who was skinny and dirty, smelled bad, and needed reminding to bathe, Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as the only person upon whom she could call when she had an emergency. She also indicated that Mr. Bryant was a handy man who performed repairs for her. Ms. Azulphar admitted that, as to Mr. Bryant, she was a "co-partner." She further admitted that Mr. Bryant was someone she "needs to continue what she was doing." In spite of her reliance upon Mr. Bryant as indicated, Ms. Azulphar showed a willingness to comply with the Department's requirements by requiring Mr. Bryant to move. On or about May 8, 2002, a foster child, F.D.,2 was placed with Ms. Azulphar. F.D. was 12 years of age at the time. F.D. was a special needs foster child because she had a history of being sexually abused at an early age and because F.D.'s father was deceased and her mother had voluntarily surrendered her parental rights. F.D. was the subject of disciplinary action at school. She was suspended for ten days from school for pulling a knife on another student. During the suspension, Ms. Azulphar took F.D. to work with her. F.D. left Ms. Azulphar's workplace without Ms. Azulphar's permission and knowledge. F.D. called her friends who came to Ms. Azulphar's workplace and F.D. left with them. Ms. Azulphar discovered that F.D. was dating a young man who was much older than F.D. Ms. Azulphar believed that the young man was approximately 26 years of age because he "looked" 26 years of age and F.D.'s friends were dating young men who also looked 26 years of age. Ms. Azulphar believed that the young man was among the friends that F.D. contacted to leave Ms. Azulphar's workplace. Also, during F.D.'s suspension, on the afternoon of May 16, 2002, her Guardian Ad-Litem came to Ms. Azulphar's home to visit F.D. The Guardian Ad-Litem knocked but no one answered. F.D. emerged from a neighbor's house. Ms. Azulphar had left F.D. alone at home. Ms. Azulphar had instructed F.D. to wait for the Guardian Ad-Litem at home and to not go outside of the home. Ms. Azulphar talked with the Guardian Ad-Litem on the telephone that same day. She expressed to the Guardian Ad-Litem that she wanted F.D. out of her home. That evening on May 16, 2002, F.D. became so distraught and volatile that she took a knife and threatened to harm herself. Ms. Azulphar called the Department's emergency telephone number and was told to call the Crisis Center for Mobile Children (CCMC). Ms. Azulphar telephoned CCMC, which told her how to talk to F.D. Ms. Azulphar did as she was instructed and F.D. did not harm herself. The next day, May 17, 2002, sometime in the evening after bedtime, which was around 9 p.m., F.D. slipped out of Ms. Azulphar's home. Ms. Azulphar had taken a sleeping pill and was not aware that F.D. was gone. Around 4 a.m. on May 18, 2002, Ms. Azulphar received a telephone call from F.D., who wanted Ms. Azulphar to come and get her. Ms. Azulphar did not want to drive at that time because she had taken the sleeping pill, so Ms. Azulphar asked F.D. to have an adult come to the telephone. Ms. Azulphar believed that F.D. was at a party because of the background noise that she heard, which sounded like a party. Ms. Azulphar recognized that the person who came to the telephone was not an adult, but Ms. Azulphar requested that F.D. be permitted to stay at the person's home until 6 a.m. when she (Ms. Azulphar) would pick-up F.D. F.D. did not wait for Ms. Azulphar. She returned to Ms. Azulphar's home before Ms. Azulphar could get her. Ms. Azulphar did not call the police when she discovered that F.D. was leaving her (Ms. Azulphar's) workplace with the young man who was 26 years of age and when she received the telephone call from F.D. The reason that Ms. Azulplhar did not call the police is that she believed that the police would do more harm than good to F.D., that F.D. had had enough trouble, and that F.D. was a Haitian as she was. After F.D. returned to Ms. Azulphar's home on May 18, 2002, Ms. Azulphar contacted the Guardian Ad-Litem and requested the removal of F.D. from her home. The Guardian Ad-Litem reported the incident to the court and the court ordered an investigation and the removal of F.D. from Ms. Azulphar's home. The Guardian Ad-Litem did not know the results of the court's investigation. During the time that F.D. was in Ms. Azulphar's home, Ms. Azulphar also had, in addition to her own child, T.A., two other foster children, A.A. and her sister, V.A.3 All of the other children agree that F.D. could not be trusted, was a thief, and did not tell the truth. After F.D. was removed from her home, Ms. Azulphar had another foster child placed in her home, who ran away. However, this time, Ms. Azulphar contacted the police and the Department when she discovered that the child had run away. Sometime during the first two weeks that F.D. was placed with Ms. Azulphar,4 the Department's social worker for F.D., Luis Muriel, was making arrangements with Ms. Azulphar to pick-up F.D. Ms. Azulphar requested Mr. Muriel to come to her workplace since F.D. would be there with her; however, he wanted Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone. Ms. Azulphar reminded him that she was not to leave F.D. at home alone. However, Mr. Muriel instructed Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone and informed Ms. Azulphar that he would be arriving at her home in 30 minutes. Ms. Azulphar contacted a male friend, who was approximately 50 years of age, for assistance and requested that he wait at her home for Mr. Muriel, who would be arriving in 30 minutes. However, she instructed her friend to wait outside in his car, not in her home, and he agreed to do so. When Mr. Muriel arrived at Ms. Azulphar's home and knocked on the door, Ms. Azulphar's friend opened the door. Ms. Azulphar's friend had not complied with her instructions and had gone into her home while F.D. was in the home. The Department had not performed a background check on Ms. Azulphar's friend. There was no reason for the Department to perform a background check on Ms. Azulphar's friend since it was never intended by Ms. Azulphar that he would have contact with the foster children placed with her. As to the incident, Ms. Azulphar had made it clear to her friend that he was not to go inside the home. On May 29, 2002, around 8 p.m., the licensing counselor for Ms. Azulphar's case, Reynaldo Gonzalez, made an unannounced visit to her home after being contacted by F.D.'s Guardian Ad-Litem regarding F.D.'s situation. By that time, F.D. had been removed from Ms. Azulphar's home. Mr. Gonzalez noticed a car parked outside of the house. He knocked on the door. The foster child A.A., who was approximately 15 years of age at the time, looked through the window and informed Mr. Gonzalez that Ms. Azulphar was not at home. Mr. Gonzalez returned around 8:30 p.m. and A.A. was still at home alone. Ms. Azulphar had left A.A. at home alone. However, Mr. Gonzalez's primary concern was not A.A.'s being at home alone. On the following day, around 6:20,5 Mr. Gonzalez returned to Ms. Azulphar's home because the Department had received anonymous information that no food was in the home. The same car was parked outside Ms. Azulphar's home, but the front of the car was parked in a different direction. Ms. Azulphar was not at home, but a relative, who was there, permitted Mr. Gonzalez to enter. Mr. Gonzalez found that there was adequate food in the home. None of the foster children were at home; they were with Ms. Azulphar. Mr. Gonzalez's testimony failed to indicate whether the car was parked along the street or in the driveway. An inference is drawn that the car was parked along the street. Ms. Azulphar voluntarily admitted to Mr. Gonzalez that Mr. Bryant was the owner of the car. She wanted Mr. Bryant to park his car outside her home to make it look as if someone were at home because her home had been burglarized when no one was at home. Further, on one of the days referred to, Mr. Bryant's car was either in disrepair or out of gas.6 According to the Department, Mr. Bryant should not have parked his car in front of Ms. Azulphar's home on the street. However, the evidence fails to demonstrate that such conduct by Mr. Bryant involved contact with the foster children. Ms. Azulphar admits that, at times, Mr. Bryant accompanied her shopping even when the foster children were with her. Ms. Azulphar also admits that Mr. Bryant has cut her grass, but only when she was at home. Ms. Azulphar testified that she obtained the approval of the Department for cutting the grass even though no Department witness recalled approving the action. Ms. Azulphar's testimony is found to be credible. Ms. Azulphar used poor judgment as it relates to Mr. Bryant. At first, Ms. Azulphar believed that, even though Mr. Bryant could not continue to be a tenant, she could continue to have Mr. Bryant to assist her with some things. She now knows that, as long as she has foster children, the Department does not want him to be around the children at any time. Ms. Azulphar believed that nothing was wrong with Mr. Bryant parking or leaving his car at her house. Now, she knows that the Department does not want him to be near her home when she has foster children. A.A. and V.A. were removed from Ms. Azulphar's home when the Department decided to revoke her foster home license. Both A.A. and V.A. want to return to Ms. Azulphar's home. Ms. Azulphar's daughter is in complete agreement with her mother being a foster parent and wants A.A. and V.A. to return.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing the revocation action of the foster home license of Marie Claire Azulphar. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of April, 2003.
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 Whether Respondent, Delores Wilson, committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, whether her foster care license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was first licensed as a foster parent in Florida, in or about 2003, after she applied for and was granted a foster care license through Camelot Community Care, Inc. (Camelot), a foster parent licensing agency located in Tampa, Florida. Prior to receiving a foster care license through Camelot, Respondent signed a Letter of Agreement with Camelot. Pursuant to the terms of the Letter of Agreement, Respondent agreed to comply with Camelot's policies. Additionally, the letter advised Respondent that if she violated the policies, foster children would be removed from her home, and the Department would make decisions regarding the revocation of her license. After Respondent was licensed, two foster children, T. and D., were placed in her home. T., a girl, was placed in Respondent's home in November 2003, and D., a boy, was placed there in December 2003. In November 2004, Camelot staff met with Respondent to discuss the foster children who had been placed in her home. At the time of this meeting, D. was 15 or 16 years old and T., who was about 18 years old, was pregnant and due to deliver the baby in a few months. D. had a history of sexually acting out. Because of D.'s history, Camelot's policy was that D. not be placed in a home with younger children. In light of D.'s history and Camelot's policy related thereto, during the November 2004 meeting, Camelot staff told Respondent that when T.'s baby was born, the baby could not live in the same house with D. Therefore, Camelot staff advised Respondent that she would have to choose whether she wanted to continue to work with D. (have D. remain in her home) or assist T. with her baby. Respondent was also told to notify Camelot when the baby was born. In December 2004, Respondent was informed that it was likely that T.'s baby would be adopted or put in foster care upon birth due to T.'s extensive disabilities. Respondent had also been told that the baby would not be given to the mother while she was in the hospital. On January 29 or 30, 2005, T., who was then 19 years old, gave birth to her baby at a hospital. It is unknown what happened at the hospital to alter the proposed adoption or foster care plan for the baby. However, while T. was in the hospital, the baby was given to her. On or about February 1, 2005, T. and the baby left the hospital. Both T. and her baby then went to Respondent's home and lived with her. The reason Respondent allowed T. and the baby to stay with her was because she wanted to help T. Despite regular communications with Camelot staff during the time period after the baby was born, Respondent never told anyone associated with Camelot or the Department that T. had given birth to the baby. Camelot found out about the birth of the baby only after being notified "indirectly" by another waiver support coordinator. D's initial placement with Respondent remained unchanged until February 7, 2005, when Camelot first received reports that T.'s baby was living with Respondent. On that day, Camelot removed D. from Respondent's home. On February 16, 2005, Camelot staff, D.'s waiver support coordinator, a Hillsborough Kids, Inc., case manager, and Respondent met to discuss the situation which resulted in D.'s being removed from Respondent's home on February 7, 2005. At this meeting, the subjects of the November 2004 and December 2004 meetings described in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 above, were also reviewed and discussed. A summary of the February 16, 2005, meeting was reported in a letter dated February 28, 2005, written by Camelot's clinical director, who attended that meeting. A copy of the letter was furnished to several persons who attended the meeting, including Respondent. The letter expressly stated that anyone who had further comments or concerns should contact the clinical director. Respondent never contacted the clinical director or anyone at Camelot regarding the contents of the February 28, 2005, letter. The discussion at the February 16, 2005, meeting focused on D. and the circumstances surrounding his removal from Respondent's home. Camelot staff specifically discussed Respondent's decision to allow T. and T.'s baby to live with Respondent, after being told that this should not happen and her failure to notify Camelot that the baby had been born and was in her home. During this meeting, Respondent never denied the foregoing facts. Rather, Respondent explained that she allowed T. and her baby to stay with her was so that she (Respondent) could help T. As a result of Respondent's failure to disclose to Camelot staff that T. had given birth to the baby and that both T. and the baby were living with Respondent, Camelot placed Respondent's foster home license on inactive status in or about late February 2005. Camelot advised Respondent of this decision at the February 16, 2005, meeting. In addition to placing Respondent's license on inactive status, Camelot also recommended that Respondent not be re-licensed as a foster parent. Respondent's foster care license was set to expire on July 31, 2005. After Respondent's foster care license issued by Camelot expired, she applied to Florida Mentor, another foster care licensing agency, for licensure as a foster parent. Florida Mentor reviewed Respondent's application for foster care licensure. As part of its review, Florida Mentor conducted a home study, the results of which were summarized in a report titled, "Annual Re-Licensing Home Study-2005" (Home Study Report or Report), which was completed on or about October 27, 2005. During the review process, Florida Mentor learned that Respondent had been previously licensed by Camelot and that the license had been placed on inactive status and allowed to expire. Based on information obtained from the Department's licensure file on Respondent and/or information provided by Respondent, Florida Mentor also learned about the circumstances discussed in paragraph 13, that caused Camelot to remove a foster child from Respondent's home and to place her foster care license on inactive status. Florida Mentor staff met with Respondent and discussed the situation involving D., T., and T.'s baby that occurred when she was licensed by Camelot. Respondent did not deny that she had violated Camelot's policy and had brought T. and T's baby to her home when D. was still there. Instead, Respondent acknowledged that she realized that her decision to bring T.'s baby home resulted in her clients being removed from her home and Camelot's decision to place her license on inactive status. Notwithstanding Respondent's admitting that she had failed to adhere to Camelot's policy regarding allowing T.'s baby in her home when D. was still there, she expressed to the Florida Mentor staff her desire to continue to work as a foster parent. Florida Mentor staff acknowledged Respondent's desire to serve as a foster parent. However, in light of her failure to comply with Camelot's policies and procedures, Florida Mentor staff discussed with Respondent the importance of communication and honesty with the foster care agency and the adherence to the policies and decisions of the agency. Florida Mentor considered several factors in its review of Respondent's application for a foster care license. These factors included Respondent's prior foster care experience with Camelot, including her admission that her violation of Camelot's policy was the reason her license was placed on inactive status; Respondent's statement of her desire to be a foster parent; and her apparent understanding that it was important that she comply with the policies of the foster care agency. Based on its review of the application and the findings and conclusions in the home study report, Florida Mentor recommended that Respondent be re-licensed as a therapeutic foster parent. Based on Florida Mentor's recommendation, Respondent was granted a new foster parent license, which was effective on November 1, 2005. It is that license which is at issue in this proceeding. Prior to issuance of Respondent's November 1, 2005, foster care license, Respondent was required to sign a Bilateral Service Agreement (Bilateral Agreement). That Bilateral Agreement set forth the terms and conditions with which all affected parties, the Department, the foster care agency, and Respondent must comply. The Bilateral Agreement was executed by Respondent and by a Florida Mentor staff person, on behalf of the Department, on October 4, 2005. Pursuant to the Bilateral Agreement, Respondent agreed to "notify the Department immediately of a potential change in . . . living arrangements or family composition (who is in the home), employment, significant health changes or any other condition that may affect the child's well being." In November 2005, after Respondent received her new foster care license, foster children were placed in Respondent's home. One child, M.J., was placed with Respondent on November 15, 2005. Two other children, S.C. and M.C., who were brothers, were place with Respondent on December 19, 2005. On January 8, 2006, M.J., S.C., and M.C., the three foster children who had been placed with Respondent in November and December 2005, were still living in Respondent's home. On January 8, 2006, a child protective investigator with the Department conducted a home study of Respondent's home. The purpose of the home study was to determine whether Respondent's home was a safe placement for her two grandchildren, and, if so, should the grandchildren be placed with Respondent. A placement for the two children was necessary because they had been taken from their mother, Respondent's daughter, for alleged abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The child protective investigator completed the home study on January 8, 2006, and reported the information she obtained during the home study on a seven-page Department form titled, "Caregiver Home Study." The completed Caregiver Home Study document was signed by Respondent and her son-in-law, Richard Davis, on January 8, 2006. Two categories included on the Caregiver Home Study form required Respondent to provide information regarding members of her household. One of the categories on the form required Respondent to provide the names of adults living or frequently in the prospective caregiver's home. The other category required that Respondent also list or provide the names, sex, and ages of children living in her home. On the Caregiver Home Study form, Richard Davis, Respondent's son-in-law, was listed as an adult who lived in or was frequently in Respondent's home. Based on information Respondent provided to the child protective investigator on January 8, 2006, the child protective investigator recorded on the Caregiver Home Study form that there were two foster children living in Respondent's home, A.C. and his brother, M.C. On January 8, 2006, in addition to A.C. and M.C., there was a third foster child, M.J., also living with Respondent. However, although there were three foster children living with Respondent on January 8, 2006, she never told the child protective investigator that M.J. was living in her home. Therefore, M.J. was not listed on the Caregiver Home Study form as a child living in Respondent's home. The Caregiver Home Study form required that Mr. Davis, the other adult living or frequently in the prospective caregiver's home, and Respondent sign the completed form. Both Respondent and Mr. Davis signed the Caregiver Home Study form on January 8, 2006. By signing the form, both Respondent and Mr. Davis acknowledged that to the best of their knowledge, "I have given the Department truthful information on all questions asked of me." On March 14, 2006, the assigned caseworker for A.C. and his brother M.C., two of the three foster children in Respondent's home, made an unannounced home visit to Respondent's home to check on those two children. During this visit, the case worker observed A.C. and M.C., as well as two other children there. The other two children the caseworker observed were Respondent's grandchildren who had been placed in Respondent's home after the Caregiver Home Study was completed on January 8, 2006. Respondent's two grandchildren had been placed with her since January 2006 and were still living with her on March 14, 2006. However, during the case worker's unannounced visit on March 14, 2006, Respondent told the caseworker that the two grandchildren did not live with her, but that she was babysitting them until their mother got off from work. After the March 14, 2006, visit to Respondent's home, the caseworker searched HomeSafe Net to determine the status of Respondent's grandchildren. That search revealed that the grandchildren were actually sheltered and living with Respondent. The caseworker also contacted an employee of the Safe Children Coalition, an agency which has a contract with the Department, to obtain information regarding the status of Respondent's grandchildren. An employee with Safe Children Coalition confirmed that the Sheriff's Office had placed Respondent's grandchildren with Respondent on January 8, 2006, and that, as of March 14, 2006, Respondent's grandchildren were still living with her. At the time of the March 14, 2006, 30-day visit, and at no time prior thereto, Florida Mentor was unaware that Respondent's grandchildren were living with Respondent. Respondent never notified Florida Mentor or the Department that her grandchildren had been placed with her and were living in her home. By failing to notify the Department or Florida Mentor of the change in the family composition, the people living in the home, Respondent violated the terms of the Bilateral Agreement. In order to provide for the safety and health of all the children placed in Respondent's care, it is imperative that the agency placing the foster children be immediately advised of any potential or actual change in the family composition, those living in the home. Since being licensed as a foster parent in Florida, Respondent repeatedly disregarded her obligation to advise the foster care agency of important and required changes. In three instances, Respondent failed to inform the appropriate agency of the changes in the composition of persons living in her home. The second and third incidents occurred after and while Respondent was licensed by Florida Mentor, after she had been specifically advised of the importance and need to communicate and be honest with the foster care agency and to adhere to the agency's policies. First, Respondent failed to advise Camelot staff when T.'s baby was born, and Respondent allowed T. to bring her newborn baby to Respondent's home to live. Respondent ignored or disregarded the directive of Camelot staff, who had told her that T.'s baby could not live in Respondent's home because of the sexual history of D., a foster child placed in Respondent's home. Respondent testified that D. was not in her home on February 1, 2005, when T.'s newborn baby was brought home, because Camelot had placed D. in respite care. According to Respondent, D. returned for one day, before he was permanently removed from her home and placed in another foster home. Respondent's testimony, discussed in paragraph 45 above, is not credible and is contrary to the competent evidence which established that D. was removed from Respondent's home on February 7, 2005, and then placed in another home. Even if D. were not physically in Respondent's house when T.'s baby was there, because D. was still a foster child placed in Respondent's home, she was responsible for notifying the Department of the change in the composition of her household. However, Respondent failed to notify Camelot or the Department and, in doing so, violated a Department rule and a specific directive of the foster care agency. In the second incident, Respondent failed to disclose to the child protective investigator that she had three foster children. Respondent testified that she was not untruthful to the child protective investigator about the number of foster children who were living in her home. According to Respondent, she never said how many foster children lived in her home. Instead, Respondent testified that the child protective investigator made that presumption after she (the investigator) saw two "yellow jackets" (files about the foster children) on a table in Respondent's house. Respondent's testimony, discussed in paragraph 47, is not credible and ignores the fact that Respondent signed the Caregiver Home Study form indicating that she had only two foster children living in the home. Moreover, having served as a foster parent for about ten years and in two states, Respondent knew the importance and significance of providing accurate information regarding the composition of the family and how that information might impact additional placements (i.e., the placement of her grandchildren) in Respondent's home. In the third instance, while licensed by Florida Mentor, Respondent failed to notify that agency or the Department of a change in the family composition (i.e., who is in the home) that occurred on January 8, 2006, when Respondent's two grandchildren were placed in her home. The agency first learned that Respondent's grandchildren lived with her only after a case worker made an unannounced visit to Respondent's home on March 14, 2006, and saw Respondent's grandchildren there, and later verified that the grandchildren were living with Respondent. Respondent does not deny that she failed to notify the Department that her grandchildren were living with her. However, Respondent testified that she never told the case worker that her grandchildren did not live with her and that she was babysitting them while their mother worked. This testimony by Respondent is not credible and is contrary to the credible testimony of the case worker and the supporting documentary evidence. Respondent was aware of the policy that required her to immediately notify the Department or foster care agency of a potential change in family composition. In fact, Respondent signed a Bilateral Agreement in which she agreed to provide such notification to the Department or the Department's representative. Nonetheless, on two occasions, after being licensed by Florida Mentor and having foster children placed in her home, Respondent failed to notify the Department of actual changes in her family's composition. Respondent deliberately violated the terms of the Bilateral Agreement that required her to notify the Department or the foster care agency of any potential, and certainly any actual, changes in her family composition. This provision is designed to better ensure the health and safety of the foster children placed with foster parents, such as Respondent. There is no indication that the children placed in Respondent's home at the time relevant to this proceeding were harmed or injured. Nonetheless, the harm which the Department's policy is designed to prevent is not only possible, but more likely to occur when the composition of the foster parent changes and the Department is not notified of that change. Without such knowledge, the Department lacks the information it needs to make decisions regarding the placement and/or continued placement of foster children in a particular foster home. As a result of Respondent's failing to provide information relative to her family composition, she also failed to provide information necessary and required to verify her compliance with the Department's rules and regulations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services, enter a final order revoking Respondent, Delores Wilson's, foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2007.
The Issue Whether 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
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' foster home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioners were licensed to operate a family foster home. Their most current license was effective through April 7, 2004. Petitioners have served as foster parents for about five years. There has been no report of child neglect or child abuse in their foster home prior to the time period relevant here. A. H. is a 10-year-old male. At all times relevant here, A. H. was in the fourth grade. Sometime prior to October 3, 2003, Respondent removed A. H. from his mother's custody and placed him in an initial foster home. A. H.'s first foster home shall be referred to hereinafter as the Gs' foster home. Thomas Munkittrick worked for Respondent as a family service counselor. A.H. was one of Mr. Munkittrick's clients. A. H. had separate visitations with his mother and father on October 6, 2003. Mr. Munkittrick supervised both visits. During a visit to the Gs' foster home on October 14, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick noticed a rash on A. H.'s stomach. The rash appeared to be a ringworm. Mr. Munkittrick did not observe any bruises on A. H.'s arms. On or about October 15, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick spoke to Petitioners to determine whether they would accept A. H. in their home as a foster child. For reasons that are not clear, Respondent changed A. H.'s placement to Petitioners' foster home that same day. On October 16, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick took A. H. to see a medical doctor at Express Care of Belleview. Mr. Munkittrick and A. H.'s mother were present for the medical examination, during which A. H. removed his shirt. Mr. Munkittrick did not observe any bruises on A. H.'s arms. A. H.'s medical record dated October 16, 2003, indicates A. H. had a scratch/bruise on his nose, a ringworm on his stomach, and a rash on his wrist. According to the doctor's notes, A. H. reported that he accidentally injured his nose while playing football with Petitioners' dogs. The doctor's notes do not refer to any bruises on A. H.'s arms. On October 23, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick visited A. H. in Petitioners' home. Mr. Munkittrick saw no visible marks or bruises on A. H. Instead, Mr. Munkittrick observed what he believed was dirt on A. H.'s arms. Mr. Munkittrick also observed that A. H. was slightly flushed from playing outside with Petitioners' dogs, two large Doberman Pinchers. During a visit to Petitioners' home on October 30, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick observed multiple bruises on both of A. H.'s wrists and arms. The bruises were round and as large as quarters. There were no scratch or bite marks on A. H.'s arms. Prior to October 30, 2003, Petitioners had not advised Respondent about the bruises on A. H.'s arms. During the October 30, 2003, home visit, Petitioner R. B., the foster mother, indicated that she had never seen the bruises on A. H.'s arms before Mr. Munkittrick pointed them out. She relied on A. H. to explain how he was injured. During the hearing, Petitioner R. B. admitted that she saw blue/purple bruises on A. H.'s arms for the first time two or three days after his medical examination on October 16, 2003. Despite the inconsistency of Petitioner R. B.'s statements, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner R. B. had no first-hand knowledge as to the cause of the bruises. Her testimony that she did not cause the bruises on A. H.'s arms is credible. On October 31, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick went to A. H.'s school to photograph the bruises on his arms. He then took A. H. for an examination by Respondent's child protection team. The examination included an evaluation of the bruises by an advanced registered nurse practitioner. The nurse was qualified by training and experience to assess pediatric injuries resulting from physical and sexual child abuse. The nurse was unable to reach a conclusion as to the exact source of the bruises. She could not rule out that they were self-inflicted. However, the nurse's testimony provides competent evidence that the bruises on A. H.'s arms were consistent with being grabbed by another person and that they were inconsistent with injuries resulting from roughhousing with dogs. Bruises heal in stages identified by colors beginning with red and ending with brown before they disappear. The colors of bruises in order of healing are red, blue, purple, green, yellow, and brown. In general, a bruise is: (a) red within one to two days of infliction; (b) blue within one to four days of infliction; and (c) yellow/green from the fifth or sixth day up to the tenth day after infliction. A. H.'s bruises ranged in color from red to yellow/green to yellow. The yellow and yellow/green bruises were located on both of A. H.'s upper extremities. He had two forearm bruises with a red component. It is highly unlikely that A. H. received the bruises prior to October 6, 2003. It is more likely that the injuries causing the bruises were inflicted approximately one to two weeks prior to October 31, 2003, i.e., between October 18, 2003, and October 31, 2003. A. H. was living in Petitioners' home and attending public school during this period. On the evening of October 31, 2003, Respondent's staff decided to move A. H. to a third foster home. Respondent's child protective investigator took A. H. back to Petitioners' home to pick up his clothes and belongings. Petitioner R. B. became excited and increasingly emotional when she learned that Respondent was changing A. H.'s placement to another foster home. Petitioner R. B. began yelling, in A. H.'s presence, that he was a liar and a "schizo" just like his "schizophrenic mother." The child protective investigator had to ask A. H. to leave the room when Petitioner R. B. began calling him and his mother names. Petitioner R. B.'s behavior on the evening of October 31, 2003, was inappropriate. However, the deputy sheriff, who was assisting with the change in placement, did not make any arrests. On the evening of October 31, 2003, and during the hearing, Petitioner J. B., the foster father, admitted that he had seen the bruises on A. H.'s arms sometime during the week before October 31, 2003. On both occasions, Petitioner J. B. stated that A. H. was crazy. Petitioner J. B. had no first-hand knowledge as to the cause of the bruises. During the hearing, Petitioner J. B. provided credible testimony that neither he nor his dogs caused the injuries. In order to operate a foster home, foster parents must undergo training on an annual basis. The training includes knowing when to advise Respondent about injuries to their foster children. The requirement to report injuries is a part of the annual service agreement signed by Respondent's staff and foster parents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order revoking Petitioners' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: J. B. (Address of Record) R. B. (Address of record) Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 Whether Petitioner Antoinette Scanziani's license as a family foster home should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating family foster homes. Children's Home Society (CHS) is the contract agency in the Central Licensing Zone that directly supervises licenses in that area. Petitioner filed an application to renew her family foster home license on May 26, 2006, which was originally issued for one year in August 2005. Prior to the issuance of her family foster care license on August 19, 2005, Petitioner had completed, inter allia, 30 hours of Models Approach Partnership and Parenting (MAPP) training and signed a Foster Parent Agreement, prepared by CHS, which spells out the duties and obligations of a foster parent. Paragraph 12 of the Agreement specifically states that a foster parent will notify CHS immediately of any change of address. Under Respondent's rules, a family foster care license is not transferable, and a new sanitation inspection and recommendation must be completed before Respondent can issue a new license for the new address. The family foster care license was issued to Petitioner for 5831 Bent Pine Drive, Apartment 300, Orlando, Florida 32822. The first foster child was placed in Petitioner's care on September 1, 2005. In August 2005, Petitioner began a dispute with the rental management company who managed the apartment complex where she lived. This resulted in Petitioner giving the company 60 days' notice that she would not renew her lease after October 31, 2005. The rental company, mean while, would not accept her tender of rental payments for August and September 2005, and initiated eviction proceedings in County Court. Prior to the final hearing, a stipulation was signed by the parties and approved by the County Court. Petitioner moved out of her apartment on October 31, 2005. On November 1, 2005, Petitioner, along with one foster child, moved into a house located at 7741 Fort Sumter Drive, Orlando, Florida 32822. CHS was not notified of this change of address until November 11, 2005. The CHS Dependency Specialist worked diligently with Petitioner to obtain a license for her new residence. DCF issued a new family foster care license for 7741 Fort Sumter Drive, Orlando, Florida 32822 on December 20, 2005. Petitioner maintained an unlicensed foster home from the period of November 1, 2005, through December 20, 2005. Although the foster child residing with Petitioner was not removed from the home, Petitioner was reminded of the need to notify CHS prior to any moves in the future. On April 6, 2006, Petitioner notified CHS that she had moved from her Fort Sumter Drive, Orlando, residence to a residence in Poinciana, Florida (Osceola County) at the end of March 2006. It was subsequently determined that a Writ of Possession for the Orlando residence was issued by the Orange County Court on March 2, 2006. Petitioner testified at the hearing that she moved at the end of March 2006, because of poor maintenance and discriminatory and retaliatory conduct by the landlord. The foster child was not removed from the home and the CHS Dependency Specialist again worked diligently and patiently with Petitioner to obtain a license for her family foster care residence at 127 Conch Drive, Kissimmee, Florida 34759 (Poinciana). Due primarily to Petitioner's lack of cooperation, a completed health inspection of the home was not completed until August 4, 2006. During this time, Petitioner submitted her application for relicensure on May 26, 2006. On July 13, 2006, the CHS Dependency Specialist hand delivered a letter, dated July 11, 2006, to Petitioner reminding her that a face-to-face visit and a walk through of the home was required before recommendation could be given. Petitioner was given a check-list of 16 items which were due to be completed prior to July 16, 2006, or CHS could not recommend renewal of her foster care license. On July 18, 2006, CHS sent Petitioner a follow-up letter. Although another home inspection had taken place on July 17, 2006, it was not a satisfactory home health inspection. In addition, proof of completion of 12 hours of training had not been demonstrated and six other items on the check-list were, also, not completed. The deadline for compliance was extended to August 3, 2006, with a reminder that the existing license expired on August 19, 2006. CHS followed with reminder telephone calls on July 19 and 20, followed by another letter on July 25, 2006, that all remaining items must be completed by August 3, 2006. Petitioner demonstrated compliance with four of the items, but did not provide Radon Test results or proof that her 2A10BC fire extinguisher was tagged and inspected. On August 18, 2006, the foster child, living in Petitioner's home, was removed. On August 19, 2006, Petitioner's family foster care license expired by operation of law, without Petitioner having submitted a completed application package to CHS. On August 28, 2006, Respondent sent Petitioner a notice of intent to deny her application for relicensure. The reasons for the denial were outlined on the four-page letter. Petitioner objected to the notice and requested a formal hearing, and this proceeding followed. From the evidence, it is apparent that CHS worked diligently in helping Petitioner transfer her existing license two times, when Petitioner moved without notifying CHS before the move; and encouraged and worked with Petitioner to complete the application for renewal a month before the expiration of her license. However, due to Petitioner's procrastination and/or resistance, the completed documentation was not sent in to Respondent prior to the expiration of her prior license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner, Antoinette Scanziani's, application for a renewal of her family foster home license be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Petitioners committed violations of Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code sufficient to justify revocation of Petitioners’ license to operate a foster care facility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners’ foster home is a private agency foster home licensed by Respondent to provide substitute care for children in foster care. On or about August 24, 2000, a report was made to the Florida Abuse Registry indicating that a child, A.C., who suffers from Downs Syndrome and who resided in Petitioners’ care at the time, had suffered a burn mark that was three to four inches long. The burn reportedly appeared to be from an iron. Pursuant to this report, Respondent’s Child Protective Investigator commenced an investigation of the matter on August 24, 2000. During the course of the August 24, 2000, investigation, Respondent’s investigator observed the burn on A.C.’s arm. Testimony of the investigator establishes the presence of such a burn on A.C.’s arm at the time. That testimony is corroborated by photographs in Respondent’s Composite Exhibit No. 3 and fairly and accurately depicts A.C.’s burned arm as it appeared on August 24, 2001. Petitioner Carol Golden, when asked about the situation, stated that she was unaware of the burn on A.C.’s right arm until the matter was brought to her attention by the investigation which commenced on August 24, 2000, following the discovery of the child's injury by school personnel. Interviews with other children in the home revealed that another child was ironing clothes on the evening of August 23, 2000, and left the iron unattended momentarily, during which time A.C. burned his arm on the iron. Respondent’s investigator referred A.C. to the Child Protection Team for an examination of his injury. Subsequently, A.C. was removed from Petitioners’ foster home after the findings of the Child Protection Team revealed that the child’s injury was indicative of inadequate supervision. Respondent’s investigator concluded her investigation and closed the case, Abuse Report 2000-133049, with verified findings for lack of supervision and failure to seek medical attention for A.C. Subsequently, Petitioners’ foster care license was revoked because of the verified findings of neglect and inadequate supervision found in Abuse Report 2000-133049. Medical examination of A.C.’s injury, as it appeared on August 24, 2000, reveals that the injury was on the child’s right arm; was five by eight centimeters in size; and was a charred burn in the shape of an iron with the circles for the steam holes clearly visible. The burn was in such a place, and of such a size, that any caretaker responsible for the bathing and clothing of A.C. should have seen the injury. Attempts by Respondent’s employees to conduct an assessment of A.C. were not successful. He was friendly and interacted well; however, he only pointed to his injury and could not communicate how it happened.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the testimony of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered confirming the revocation of Petitioner’s foster license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Golden Carol Golden 7939 Denham Road Jacksonville, Florida 32208 Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondents have cared for foster children for some twenty years. In November or December of 1975, they began with Christian Youth Care, Inc. (CYC), a foster home in Zephyrhills founded under the auspices of the First Baptist Church of Zephyrhills. Since then small groups of adolescent girls have lived with respondents and their teenage daughter, Dawn. In all, some 80 children have lived at CYC since respondents have had charge of the home. In July of 1977, petitioner placed June Holmes, who is deaf and dumb, with respondents. After June had been with the Houghs for two weeks or so, Lillian Parsons, a social worker in petitioner's employ, told Mrs. Hough that June should be wearing a hearing aid. June did not want to wear a hearing aid. She was also disappointed that Mrs. Hough would not take her to Daytona Beach; she became very upset, wielded a straightened safety pen and started knocking things off bureaus. When Mr. Hough served as a medical technician in the armed forces, unruly patients were sometimes wrapped in blankets. Perhaps remembering this experience, he enlisted Mrs. Hough in wrestling June to the floor, wrapping her in a blanket and securing the blanket with three belts. In the process, Mr. Hough said to June, "See how mad you can get." These events caused concern among the other children living in the home, who gathered to watch and, at respondents' suggestion, to say prayers. Mrs. Hough told June that she loved her. After June had lain bound in this fashion for 45 minutes, respondents released her. The following day Mrs. Hough called Mrs. Parsons to report the incident and to ask that June be placed in another home. Mrs. Parsons expressed no disapproval of respondents' method of restraining June nor did she tell them not to do it again. June remained with respondents until she left for boarding school in St. Augustine. When June returned to the Houghs from school on Easter vacation 1978, she wanted a new pair of shoes that cost $24.95. Respondents bought her a different pair instead. Easter morning June wanted to wear her old shoes, not her new shoes. This caused an argument. Mrs. Hough stayed home with June while Mr. Hough took the others to church. When Mrs. Hough began packing June's clothes into a suitcase, June was "worried that [respondents] would move [her] out." Deposition of June Holmes, p. 5. She walked outside and sat under a tree near the road. Mrs. Hough telephoned her husband and summoned him home from church. With the help of a deputy sheriff brandishing handcuffs, respondents coaxed June into their van and drove her up the driveway to their home. At first she refused to leave the van, so respondents went inside without her. When June eventually went inside, there was another confrontation. Mr. Hough wrestled June to the floor and sent Mrs. Hough for a blanket. After respondents wrapped June in the blanket and secured it with belts, Mr. Hough set off to retrieve the children he had left at church. After Mr. Hough returned with the other children, respondents unwrapped June and there was an Easter egg hunt. The next day Mrs. Hough called petitioner's offices in New Port Richey, then drove June to New Port Richey and left her there, because she wanted no more to do with her. When Mrs. Parsons learned that respondents had wrapped June in a blanket a second time, she asked to be relieved of responsibility for June. Eventually David J. Schultz, at the time a child welfare social worker in petitioner's employ, assumed responsibility for June; and June was again placed with respondents. Mr. and Mrs. Hough frequently communicated with guidance counselors and teachers at the schools children in their care attended. They made six visits to talk about Evelyn Ciacelli's progress with Ricky Rowell, guidance counselor at Woodland Elementary School in Zephryhills, and spoke to him on the telephone about Evelyn on several other occasions. Disappointed in Evelyn's progress with her homework one night, Mr. Hough picked her up and shook her. On another occasion, Evelyn and her roommate were wrestling in their room after they had been sent to bed. Mr. Hough heard them from the kitchen, walked into their bedroom with a spatula in his hand, and gave Evelyn, who was wearing a bathrobe over her nightgown, a swat on the rear with the spatula. On November 20, 1978, David J. Schultz left Petitioner's employ. He subsequently went to work for a corporation controlled by respondents and began living in their home. He lived there on December 13, 1978. On December 13, 1978, Bonnie Blair McKenzie, then employed by petitioner as a community youth leader, picked up Cindy Spickelmier at a shelter home in Dade City and drove her to respondents' home. Cindy, a 14 year old, was at the shelter home after having run away from another foster home, the Newmans'. She had lived with respondents previously and David Schultz also knew her. Shortly after Cindy's arrival, David Schultz was talking to her in the Houghs' living room, where she was sitting on a couch, crying. Also present were Mr. Hough, Ms. McKenzie, Nancy Newman, the foster mother who had previously had custody of Cindy, and Ed Springer, then the social worker in petitioner's employ responsible for Cindy's placement. Angry because Cindy was ignoring him, David Schultz grabbed the hair of her head, jerked her up into a standing position, had her bend over and lean against a desk for support, and struck her buttocks with a wooden paddle an inch thick. He administered the first blow with such force that Ms. Newman was frightened and Ms. McKenzie was "horrified and devastated." (T.52). Cindy fell to her knees, hysterical. Less forcefully, David Schultz struck her buttocks a second time. At the hearing Mr. Hough testified that: after Dave gave her the swats she sat back down and she was a new child. We were able to communicate with her and we thought we were really making good progress and being able to work with the child. That was the purpose of the new program and of course we were trying to set up parameters that would be beneficial to the child. (T.233). Notwithstanding this perceived improvement in Cindy's deportment, Ed Springer gave Cindy another spanking 30 or 45 minutes after David Schultz had finished. In the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Hough, and Mr. Schultz, Ed Springer struck Cindy five times on the buttocks with the same wooden paddle David Schultz had used, as punishment for running away from the Newmans' house. Later, on the evening of December 13, 1978, Cindy ran away from the Houghs'. She ended up at her mother's house where she spent the night. The next day her mother took her to the Pasco County Sheriff's Department. There Fay Wilbur an investigator for the Sheriff's Department, took photographs of Cindy's badly bruised buttocks. Petitioner's exhibits 3, 4 and 5. On the following day, December 15, 1978, Dr. Lena Ayala, a pediatrician, examined Cindy. She found large "[v]ery tender, painful" (T.55) hematomas covering the whole area of Cindy's buttocks. If she had seen a child in the custody of its natural parents in that condition, Dr. Ayala testified, she would have reported the matter to the child abuse registry. Petitioner discharged Ed Springer because of the beating he had administered to Cindy Spickelmier. Petitioner publishes a manual with a chapter entitled "Foster Family Group Homes for Dependent youth," Petitioner's exhibit No. 8. In part, the manual provides: 8.4.4 Unacceptable disciplinary approaches include: a. Corporal punishment--slapping, kicking, hitting, etc. * * * Humiliation, ridicule, sarcasm, shaming in front of the group or alone. Deprivation of essential needs such as food, sleep, or parental visits. Petitioner's exhibit No. 8, p.9. Although petitioner sometimes furnished foster group home licensees copies of its manuals, petitioner's files do not indicate that either Mr. or Mrs. Hough ever received a copy. Respondents wore unaware of the manual's contents on December 13, 1978; and David Schultz was also unaware of any policy against corporal punishment of foster group home children. Lorraine Cash, a foster mother in Pasco County, never spanked any foster child in her care over the age of eleven years. On the other hand, Henry Arnett, another foster parent in Pasco County, used corporal punishment in disciplining teen aged foster boys. He and his wife, Doris, were named foster parents of the year in 1978. On December 14, 1978, Joanne Wall telephoned respondents on behalf of petitioner and told Mr. Hough that David Schultz should be barred from their premises. When Mr. Hough protested that David Schultz lived on the premises, Ms. Wall asked Mr. Hough to keep David Schultz from working with the girls, which Mr. Hough agreed to do. On December 18, 1978, respondents submitted an application to petitioner for a child care center license, an application on which they had begun work considerably before December 13, 1978. Discouraged by the pace at which this application was being considered and by what respondents perceived as unfairness on the part of some of petitioner's personnel, Mr. Hough on February 15, 1979, told William Laing, a manager for petitioner, that he wanted all the foster children but two removed by five o'clock the following day, a Friday. Even though the agreement between petitioner and respondents called for two weeks' notice by the foster parents, petitioner's exhibit No. 6, Mr. Hough was unwilling to wait so long. Petitioner arranged to pick up all the foster children in respondents' care on the following day. Some of the children had not been told they would be leaving the Houghs' home. Respondents own improved real estate from which they derive rental income. In addition, CYC, funded by the First Baptist Church of Zephyrhills, paid respondents a salary. Occasionally, Mr. Hough worked outside the home. Pasco County contributed to the costs of caring for foster children. Respondents did not need moneys petitioner paid them on behalf of the children for their own personal purposes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That, on the next anniversary of the date of respondents' original foster group home license, petitioner discontinue respondents' license for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara McPherson, Esquire Post Office Box 5046 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Robert L. Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 443 Dade City, Florida 33525
The Issue Whether Respondents’ renewal foster home license application should be denied based upon allegations that Respondents violated a foster child’s safety plan, refused to sign a corrective action plan, and refused to work in partnership with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties DCF is the state agency responsible for licensing foster care parents and foster homes pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes. DCF administers foster care programs by contracting with third-party private entities. In Circuit 19, which is the geographic area encompassing Port St. Lucie, DCF has contracted with Devereux Community Based Care (“Devereux”) to be the “lead agency” to provide the majority of child services. Devereux, in turn, has subcontracted with Camelot Community Care (“Camelot”), which is licensed as a child placement agency. Respondents, who are husband and wife, are foster care parents in a foster care home licensed by DCF. At all times material hereto, Mr. and Mrs. Arias have fostered children at their home in Port St. Lucie. Respondent, Kathleen Arias (“Mrs. Arias”), does not work outside the foster home. She is a “stay-at-home” foster mom. Over the past 16 years, Mrs. Arias has fostered many children. Mrs. Arias is very loving to the foster children in her care, and she has provided a great benefit to the foster children in her care.2/ Kenneth Strout’s Prior History of Sexually Inappropriate Behaviors Kenneth Strout (“Kenneth”), who recently turned 18 years old, was placed into Respondents’ foster home in 2013. Prior to his placement in Respondents’ home, Kenneth engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviors. As a therapeutic foster child in Respondents’ home, Kenneth received therapeutic services, including therapy, psychiatric services, support, and therapeutic parenting by a trained therapeutic foster parent, Mrs. Arias. Despite receiving therapeutic services, Kenneth continued to engage in inappropriate sexual behaviors while living in Respondents’ home. During the time in which Kenneth lived in the home, he had a history of sexually touching others, exposing himself, and masturbating in close proximity to others. On one particular occasion on September 17, 2014, Kenneth was sitting on the couch watching television, and Mrs. Arias’ sister walked in the room. While she had her back to Kenneth, he dropped his pants, exposed himself to her, and pressed his penis against her buttocks. The Applicable Safety Plan Requirements As a result of this incident, an updated safety plan was developed.3/ The safety plan was signed by Mrs. Arias on October 8, 2014. Mrs. Arias reviewed the safety plan and is aware of the requirements of the safety plan. Specifically, the safety plan requires, in pertinent part: “Client needs to be within eyesight and earshot of a responsible adult, who is aware of and will enforce the safety plan at all times.” The May 28, 2015, Incident at LA Fitness and its Aftermath Against this backdrop, on May 28, 2015, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Mrs. Arias took Kenneth, who was 17 years old at the time, to LA Fitness, a gym facility in Port St. Lucie. Mrs. Arias had a membership at LA Fitness and frequented the facility on a regular basis. Despite Ms. Arias’ knowledge of Kenneth’s inappropriate sexual propensities, Kenneth often accompanied Mrs. Arias to the facility, where he would play basketball on an indoor basketball court, while Mrs. Arias exercised in another area at the facility. During the evening of May 28, 2015, Kenneth had been playing basketball on the indoor basketball court. He left the basketball court and approached Mrs. Arias and told her that he needed to use the bathroom. Mrs. Arias gave Kenneth permission to go to the bathroom. The men’s restroom is located inside the men’s locker room. At this point, Kenneth walked toward the men’s locker room, and entered the men’s locker room through the door leading from a hallway into the men’s locker room. Mrs. Arias did not go into the men’s locker room with Kenneth, nor was Kenneth accompanied by an adult when he entered the men’s locker room. Once Kenneth entered the men’s locker room, he walked to the other end of the locker room to another door, which led to the Jacuzzi area. Kenneth then opened the door from the men’s locker room leading to the Jacuzzi area. At this point, Kenneth observed a female, Concepcion Alvarado, sitting alone in the Jacuzzi. Ms. Alvarado was in her swimsuit. At this point, Ms. Alvarado was relaxing in the Jacuzzi with her eyes closed. After observing Ms. Alvarado for a moment, Kenneth stripped down to his boxer shorts, entered the Jacuzzi, and inappropriately touched Ms. Alvarado on her leg. Upon realizing that somebody touched her leg, Ms. Alvarado opened her eyes, saw Kenneth in front of her, and said to him: “What are you doing, little boy?” “Just get out of my way, or do your own stuff.” Kenneth then touched Ms. Alvarado on her shoulder. At this point, Ms. Alvarado became very angry and said to Kenneth: “Why are you touching me? You’re not supposed to do that.” “Just get out.” Kenneth smiled at Ms. Alvarado as Ms. Alvarado exited the Jacuzzi. Ms. Alvarado then entered the nearby pool. Kenneth followed Ms. Alvarado and jumped in the pool as well. Ms. Alvarado recognized Kenneth because he had engaged in similar inappropriate sexual behavior a week earlier. On the prior occasion, Kenneth and Ms. Alvarado were in the Jacuzzi when Kenneth tried to kiss her and touched her leg. Ms. Alvarado did not report the prior incident. However, Ms. Alvarado reported the May 28, 2015, incident to an LA Fitness employee. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement officers arrived at the facility and arrested Kenneth. Kenneth was taken to a juvenile detention facility where he spent the night. Kenneth was not within eyeshot or earshot of Mrs. Arias or another responsible adult once he entered the men’s locker room on May 28, 2015. Kenneth was not within eyeshot or earshot of Mrs. Arias or another responsible adult when the inappropriate physical contact perpetrated by Kenneth against Ms. Alvarado in the Jacuzzi on May 28, 2015, occurred. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondents violated the October 2014 safety plan by failing to ensure that Kenneth was within earshot and eyeshot of a responsible adult at all times when he was at LA Fitness. Had Kenneth been within eyeshot and earshot of a responsible adult at all times on May 28, 2015, while he was at LA Fitness, the incident in the Jacuzzi with Ms. Alvarado would not have occurred.4/ Notably, given Kenneth’s history of sexually inappropriate behaviors, Mrs. Arias knew that she was taking a risk to the public in bringing Kenneth to LA fitness because it was an environment that could be problematic for him. At hearing, Ms. Linda Green, a licensed clinical social worker formerly employed by Camelot, persuasively and credibly explained the difficulties she and Mrs. Arias faced in their efforts to deal with Kenneth’s sexually inappropriate behaviors. According to Ms. Green, a true bond developed between Mrs. Arias and Kenneth. Kenneth referred to Mrs. Arias as “mom,” and he felt like she was his mother. In an attempt to keep the family unit intact, Ms. Green wanted significant “client-directed therapy” and “advocation because the client should have the right to control their life.” On the other hand, Ms. Green was concerned about keeping society safe from Kenneth. In hindsight, Ms. Green candidly admitted at hearing that Kenneth “probably needed institutionalization sooner.” Mrs. Arias recognized her inability to control Kenneth’s sexually inappropriate behaviors and the danger he posed to society prior to the May 28, 2015, incident. Prior to the May 28, 2015, incident, Mrs. Arias requested that Kenneth be placed on a “30-Day Notice.” Kenneth was on a “30-Day Notice” when the incident at the gym on May 28, 2015, occurred. Nevertheless, Kenneth remained in the Respondents’ home as of the May 28, 2015, incident at the gym because Devereux was having difficulty finding a new placement, and Mrs. Arias agreed to keep Kenneth in the home until after the end of the school year. The school year ended the first week of June. Kenneth never returned to Respondents’ home after the May 28, 2015, incident at LA Fitness. Instead, Kenneth was discharged from the foster care program, and placed in a group facility where he has resided ever since. It is anticipated that Kenneth will remain in the group facility until he is 23 years old. Following the incident at the LA Fitness gym on May 28, 2015, DCF undertook an investigation. As a result of its investigation, DCF concluded that the safety plan was violated because Kenneth was not within earshot or eyeshot of a responsible adult when the incident at the gym on May 28, 2015, occurred. DCF’s investigation resulted in a verified finding of abuse against Respondents based on inadequate supervision. Based on DCF’s verified finding of abuse based on inadequate supervision, a corrective action plan was required by administrative rule and prepared for Respondents to execute. A corrective action plan is a document which identifies issues of concern to DCF and how DCF, as an agency, can work together with the foster parent to improve the foster parent’s performance. A corrective action plan serves as a supportive intervention and is not punitive in nature. Respondents refused to execute the corrective action plan because they were concerned that, in doing so, they would admit DCF’s investigative finding of abuse based on inadequate supervision. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondents refused to execute the corrective action plan. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondents failed to work in partnership with DCF.5/ Respondents’ foster care license was due to expire on October 18, 2015. After the May 28, 2015, incident occurred, DCF placed another child under Respondents’ care. Regardless of the incident at LA Fitness on May 28, 2015, DCF intended to re-license Respondents. DCF intended to renew Respondents’ foster care license after the May 28, 2015, incident despite the verified finding of inadequate supervision. DCF was unable to re-license Respondents because they failed to execute the corrective action plan required by rule. Had Respondents executed the corrective action plan required by DCF, Respondents’ foster care license would have been renewed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department of Children and Families placing Respondents’ foster care license in provisional status for six months, during which time Respondents shall execute the corrective action plan. If Respondents decline to execute the corrective action plan within six months, the provisional license will not be replaced with a regular license or renewed.7/ DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2016.
