Findings Of Fact The Agency seeks to revoke the Respondents' Adult Family Care Home (AFCH) license pursuant to an Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 1999, because the Respondents are named as confirmed perpetrators of adult neglect in FPSS Abuse Report No. 1998-023542. This report was uncontested and, therefore, upheld pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Department of Children and Family Services administers the abuse registry pursuant to the authority confirmed in Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, and is a separate and distinct agency of the State of Florida from the Petitioner. The Respondents are the owners and operators of the subject AFCH named the Bucknor Adult and Foster Home and reside therein. The Petitioner sought to suspend the Respondents' AFCH license in 1998 following the incident that formed the basis of FPSS Abuse Report No. 1998-023542. The parties resolved the suspension in DOAH Case No. 98-1947, ACHA No. 7-98-400-AFCH, through an agreement wherein the AFCH closed until the Agency verified that construction activity on the premises of the AFCH no longer presented a danger to residents. The parties did not contemplate that the Respondents would fail to contest their status as confirmed perpetrators of neglect so the agreement does not address the present circumstance. There is no dispute that the Respondents are the persons named as confirmed perpetrators of neglect in FPSS Abuse Report No. 1998-023542. The Respondents have not received an exemption from disqualification in order to operate an AFCH.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking the Respondents' license to operate as an Adult Family Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 22nd day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 6800 North Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 220 Tampa, Florida 33614 Robert Mike, II, Esquire 1801 Lee Road, Suite 120 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to a license to operate a family day care home under the provisions of Chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact On February 16, 2004, the Department notified Petitioner that her application for a license to operate a family day care home was denied. The denial was based on information obtained by the Department as part of the background check it conducted in review of Petitioner's application. The denial letter advised Petitioner that the family day care home license was denied based on information contained in Abuse Hotline Report No. 2002-132739 (2002 Abuse Report). According to the 2002 Abuse Report, Petitioner failed to take her daughter to the doctor for a follow-up visit three weeks after he removed a cast from her arm, so that the doctor could insure that the injury was healing properly. As a result of the foregoing allegations, the 2002 Abuse Report concluded that there were "some indicators" of medical neglect by Petitioner. The Department's background investigation revealed that Petitioner's husband, Darrell Faniel, who resided with her, pled nolo contendre to the charge of selling cocaine, a felony offense, and was adjudicated guilty of that offense in 1991 in Case No. CF90-5739 in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, Criminal Division. As a result of this felony conviction on July 25, 1991, Mr. Faniel was placed on probation for five years, but was discharged from probation about 16 months early pursuant to a court order which stated that Mr. Faniel "has complied with the rules and regulation of probation and is no longer in need of supervision." The family day care home license for which Petitioner applied would allow her to care for up to ten children in her home. Given the foregoing information obtained by the Department as part of its background investigation, the Department had doubts about whether Petitioner could provide a safe day care home for children. Accordingly, the Department denied Petitioner's application. The foregoing facts have not been refuted by Petitioner, nor did she present any evidence to demonstrate that she is eligible for licensure as an operator of a family day care home. As noted in the Preliminary Statement, Petitioner did not appear at hearing, and no evidence was presented on her behalf.
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 denying Petitioner a license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2004, 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 20th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Cutina Faniel 2404 Temple Circle Haines City, Florida 33884 Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be granted a foster home license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Kate Shaw, applied for a license to operate a family foster home. By letter dated November 18, 1998, the Department notified Petitioner that based on findings in FPSS Abuse Report No. 92-069954, the Department was denying her application for a license to provide foster care. Furthermore, the letter advised Petitioner that she had the "right to request an [a]dministrative [h]earing to review the Department's decision and to request an exemption." FPSS Abuse Report No. 92-069954 named Petitioner as the perpetrator of abuse upon her 13-year-old daughter, Crystal Fishburne (Crysal)/Ms. Fishburne). That report was classified as confirmed in July or August 1992. The incident which was the subject of the abuse report occurred on the evening of July 3, 1992, and was reported to the abuse hotline on that same evening. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the agency previously responsible for investigating reports of child abuse, assigned a child protection investigator to investigate the subject report. On July 4, 1992, the investigator assigned to the case went to Petitioner's home and interviewed Petitioner and her daughter, Crystal. During the interviews, both Petitioner and her daughter told the investigator that Petitioner had hit Crystal with an extension cord the prior evening. Welts or marks were left on Crystal's legs, arms, and back as a result of Petitioner's hitting her. As a part of the investigation, these marks were photographed. However, no medical examination was ever conducted. On July 4, 1992, after the investigator interviewed Petitioner and Crystal, she tried to take Crystal to the Family Services Program for a cooling-off period, but Crystal refused to go. After the investigation, an abuse report was prepared finding that Petitioner had hit Crystal several times with an extension cord leaving linear and looped marks on the daughter's legs, arms, and back. Petitioner has never denied that she hit Crystal with an extension cord on the evening of July 3, 1992. However, during the investigation and at the hearing, Petitioner disputed two statements that Crystal made to the investigator on July 4, 1992. First, Crystal reported that Petitioner had hit her with an extension cord on one other occasion. Second, with regard to the July 3, 1992, incident, Crystal stated that her step-father had held her down while her mother hit her. At hearing, Ms. Fisburne (Crystal) provided credible testimony that the aforementioned statements were not true, but were made only because she was angry and wanted to get away from her mother. At the time of the July 1992 incident and during the two years prior thereto, Crystal was a difficult child who refused to follow Petitioner's directions, did whatever she wanted to do, and threatened to call the police if Petitioner "did anything" to her. Crystal exhibited numerous behavior problems. Crystal became violent with Petitioner; routinely skipped school; left home for days at a time; and stole Petitioner's car twice within a one-month period. The first time Crystal stole Petitioner's car, she kept it for one day; the second time Crystal stole the car, she kept it three days. When Crystal ran away from home, she would often return to Petitioner's house during the day when no one was at home and break in and steal food and money. Also, in one instance, Crystal broke into someone else's house. On the day of the incident, Petitioner was "pushed to the limit" and resorted to the use of corporal punishment as a means of redirecting her daughter's behavior. Petitioner expressed regret about hitting her daughter with an extension cord. However, she believed that corporal punishment was appropriate given the seriousness of Crystal's behavior, the length of time Crystal had been exhibiting this behavior, and the ineffectiveness of other disciplinary methods, such as placing Crystal on restrictions and giving her extra chores to perform. Prior to the July 3, 1992, incident, Petitioner had sought help in dealing with Crystal's behavioral problems from various community resources. At the suggestion of a school counselor, Petitioner arranged for counseling for Crystal. However, after several sessions, the counseling was discontinued because Crystal was uncooperative. In Crystal's words, referring to the counselor, "I didn't want to talk to the man." When Crystal ran away from home, Petitioner contacted the Sheriff's Office but was told that it could provide no assistance because there was no law against a child running away from home. However, Petitioner was told by the Sheriff's Office that since Crystal was a minor, whenever she came home, Petitioner would have to allow her to return. Finally, during one or more of Crystal's episodes, Petitioner attempted to take her to the detention center for a 72-hour cooling-off period. These efforts were likewise unsuccessful because the detention center refused to accept Crystal. Other than the incident referred to in the FPSS Abuse Report No. 92-069954, Petitioner has not been the subject of an abuse report. Since the July 1992, Petitioner has been employed in several jobs that involve working with children. She was employed as a house parent in a home for teenage mothers and their babies; a back-up parent for the Department of Juvenile Justice to children who were removed from their home; and a substitute teacher. Despite the discrepancies in statements made by Petitioner and her daughter and in FPSS Abuse Report No. 92-069954, there is no evidence that Petitioner requested a hearing to have the abuse report expunged or amended as required in Section 415.504(4)(d)1.b., Florida Statutes (1991). Because the report was never challenged, FPSS Abuse Report No. 92-069954 remains and is properly deemed a confirmed report of abuse. Furthermore, there is no indication that Petitioner ever applied for or was granted an exemption from disqualification as provided in the Florida Statutes. In light of the confirmed report of abuse naming Petitioner as the perpetrator of abuse against a child and in absence of the Department's granting an exemption from disqualification, the Department properly found that Petitioner failed the required screening and thus, properly denied her application for a foster home license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a family foster home. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 29th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kate Shaw 619 38th Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Amy V. Archibald, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 100 Largo, Florida 33778-1630
The Issue Whether the Respondents' foster care license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, the Respondents were licensed as a foster home. During the course of such licensure, a minor child, M.A.G., was placed within Respondents' home. It was Respondent, Bertha Sosa's intention to adopt M.A.G. and her minor brother who was also placed with Respondents. Respondents were approved for licensure as foster parents through a private company. Such company was a third party screening agent used by the Department to process foster home applicants. For reasons unknown, such company did not obtain Respondents' signature to or agreement for certain provisions which are required for licensure. For example, all foster home licensees are required to execute service agreements. No such agreement has been located for Respondents. Pertinent to the service agreements are requirements regarding discipline which may be utilized by foster care licensees. In this instance, the discipline policy agreement prohibits: hitting a child with any object; slapping, smacking, whipping, washing mouth out with soap, or any other form of physical discipline; and humiliating or degrading punishment. While the Respondents do not acknowledge that they executed such agreements, it is undisputed that the failure to do so would result in the denial of initial licensure. The only reason Respondents sought initial licensure was to be able to adopt children. They were not then, and were not at the time of the hearing, interested in foster care. The foster care program was the vehicle they chose to be able to adopt. M.A.G. has a history of physical and sexual abuse. It is not uncommon for children with such history to exhibit inappropriate behaviors. Such behavior may include, as described by Mrs. Sosa, "humping." Also, M.A.G. had difficulty with telling lies. Mrs. Sosa admitted that when M.A.G. exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior, she would force the child into a cold shower. Mrs. Sosa admitted that when M.A.G. lied, she would wash her mouth with soap. On or about March 11, 1996, an investigation of abuse allegations began regarding M.A.G. and the Respondent, Juan Sosa. M.A.G. alleged that while Mrs. Sosa was out of the home, Mr. Sosa hit her several times with a broomstick. According to M.A.G., such conduct was the result of M.A.G.'s disobedience and disruptive behavior which culminated in discipline. Bruises consistent with a blunt instrument were observed on M.A.G.'s legs and arm. M.A.G. bragged that she could withstand, or feel no, pain. The bruises were photographed within two days of the alleged incident. Mr. Sosa denied inflicting the injuries sustained by M.A.G.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Families enter a final order affirming the revocation of Respondents' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of February, 1997. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen Farnsworth Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Lee Marks, Esquire 757 41st Street Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Coran General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by Petitioner, Karyn Gallwitz, for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, Petitioner intends to work as a "therapeutic" foster parent. Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. In a preliminary decision entered on January 4, 1999, a DCFS committee denied the request on the ground that Petitioner had not sufficiently rehabilitated herself since she was arrested for a disqualifying offense in 1985. Petitioner is now barred from working in a position of special trust because of a disqualifying offense which occurred in 1985. On an undisclosed date during that year, Petitioner acknowledges that she and four girlfriends were arrested and each was charged with possession of a controlled substance (cocaine). According to Petitioner, she pled guilty to the charge and adjudication of guilt was withheld by the court. She was not incarcerated. A copy of the pertinent court records was not made a part of this record, and thus the specific statute she is charged with violating is unknown. In 1989, Petitioner was divorced. Her daughter, J. S., lived with the ex-husband until late 1994, when she returned to live with Petitioner at her former residence in Broward County. J. S. remained there until December 1997, when Petitioner sent her to live with the child's paternal grandparents, who also lived in Broward County. Petitioner is now remarried, lives in Marion County, and has another child who is five and one-half years of age. For the last seven years or so, Petitioner has been a homemaker. Recently, in response to an advertisement in a local newspaper, she became interested in becoming a therapeutic foster parent. To this end, she successfully completed a 10-week training course by an organization which contracts with DCFS to provide this service. That organization has also found her to be qualified to be licensed as a therapeutic foster parent. However, a background screening by DCFS revealed Petitioner's disqualifying offense in 1985, and without an exemption, Petitioner cannot serve in that position. This prompted Petitioner to initiate this proceeding. Petitioner is a full-time homemaker and is active in her church, including the teaching of children's classes. Except for the single occasion on which she used a drug in 1985, she has never consumed any drugs. No alcoholic beverages are allowed in her household. There is no evidence that she has been charged with any offense since the disqualifying offense some fourteen years ago. The testimony of a church member establishes that Petitioner is a "very caring" and stable person with "high morals." Letters received in evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 corroborate this testimony. Petitioner also expressed a sincere desire to work with children who need special attention, such as therapeutic foster children. As clarified by DCFS at hearing, Petitioner's arrest dates back fourteen years, and by itself, would not ordinarily prevent Petitioner from obtaining an exemption for working in a day care center or other similar employment. Therapeutic foster parenting, however, involves a much more "intense" level of care, and requires that the parent, or her husband, be present in the home twenty-four hours per day. This is because a therapeutic foster child is emotionally disturbed and beset with the most serious mental health and behavioral problems. Moreover, it is not uncommon for such children to have once been patients in a psychiatric facility. Given these considerations, the most important criterion is that the child be placed in a highly stable environment. The DCFS takes the position that because Petitioner has acknowledged that she could not "control" her own daughter in 1997, which resulted in the child being sent to the grandparents, Petitioner cannot provide a stable environment for an emotionally fragile child. In addition, it contends that an abuse report discussed below demonstrates that Petitioner is not sufficiently rehabilitated since the disqualifying offense. As noted above, Petitioner's daughter, J. S., lived with her for a three-year period ending in December 1997. At that time, Petitioner admits she could no longer control J. S. and sent her to live with her paternal grandparents. Without advising Petitioner, the grandparents in turn immediately allowed the child to move in with their son, the ex-husband. In July 1998, a report of abuse was lodged against the ex-husband. The substance of the charges is found in abuse report no. 98-081187, which has been received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Although the report was closed with no indicators of abuse, during the course of that investigation, an allegation was made that Petitioner allowed J. S. to stay in the home of her ex-husband even though she knew that he was a heavy drinker and may have inappropriately touched the daughter. Petitioner denied this allegation, and the agency's determination in the report that there were no indicators of abuse bears out this assertion. Therefore, the abuse report does not detract from Petitioner's evidence that she is sufficiently rehabilitated since her arrest in 1985, and that she would not present a danger to foster children if the exemption were granted. At hearing, Petitioner conceded that she finally sent her daughter to the paternal grandparents in December 1997 because the daughter would not obey her, and she found it difficult to control the child. While this issue may arguably bear on Petitioner's fitness to be licensed as a foster parent, it has no nexus to Petitioner's request for an exemption. Given the time period since the disqualifying incident, Petitioner's unblemished record since that time, and the evidence that she has high morals and stability in her life, it is found that Petitioner has demonstrated that she is sufficiently rehabilitated since her arrest some fourteen years ago and she would not present a danger if employment is allowed. Her request should accordingly be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of March, 1999. Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Karen Gallwitz Post Office Box 827 Orange Lake, Florida 32681 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158
The Issue May the Department of Children and Family Services revoke Petitioners' foster home license for cause?
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Ray and Gloria Hill have operated a licensed foster care home in Gadsden County, Florida, for approximately two years. Their home is licensed by DCF through Boys and Girls Town of Tallahassee, a private, not-for-profit organization which provides foster home placements for DCF. During all or part of these two years, Petitioners had two teenage girls placed in their foster care by Boys and Girls Town. These girls were J.B. (twelve years old) and A.W. (fourteen years old). Two altercations allegedly occurred between J.B. and Gloria Hill, who were the only witnesses to either event. J.B. resided with the Hills for the better part of the two years. Two days before Christmas 2000, Mrs. Hill had an argument with J.B. as a result of J.B. having opened every holiday-wrapped Christmas present under the tree. When Mrs. Hill asked her if she had done this, J.B. would not respond. There is no dispute that J.B. had Chinese food, prepared by Mrs. Hill, in her hands at that point. J.B. denied throwing the food at Mrs. Hill and asserted that Mrs. Hill slapped the food out of J.B.'s hands, and that, after several misses, Mrs. Hill slapped J.B.'s face with an open hand, at which point, J.B. began hitting Mrs. Hill. Mrs. Hill denied "initiating" the violence, but it is uncontested and both witnesses testified to hitting each other several times at that point. Mrs. Hill requested that night that J.B. immediately be removed from her care. A mark was found on J.B.'s face when she was removed from the Hills' home by authorities that night. There is no clear evidence as to what caused the mark. According to J.B.'s initial testimony at the final hearing, Gloria Hill, in a rage, pushed J.B.'s face into the dashboard airbag area of a car driven by Mrs. Hill while J.B. was riding in the front passenger seat, causing J.B.'s lip to bleed. Gloria Hill denied doing so. J.B. did not report this alleged incident to anyone for many months. She only reported it the night she was removed from the Hills' home after the Christmas 2000 incident. After J.B.'s removal from the Hills' home, and after interrogation by Boys and Girls Town social worker, Sydney Smith, J.B. recanted her accusation that Mrs. Hill had deliberately pushed her face into the dashboard airbag area of the car. At that time, J.B. stated to Mrs. Smith that Mrs. Hill had, in fact, extended her arm to keep J.B. from falling forward into the dashboard and windshield when Mrs. Hill was forced to suddenly apply the brakes to avoid a collision. Accordingly, on the basis of the prior inconsistent statement, J.B.'s testimony about the dashboard incident is not credited as a true account, and the veracity of her version of the Christmas 2000 incident is thrown into doubt. A.W. lived with Mr. and Mrs. Hill for only part of the two years that J.B. was with them. In August 2000, contrary to Mrs. Hill's prior instructions, A.W. showed J.B. an unflattering internet jailhouse photograph of J.B.'s natural mother. The printout of this photograph also revealed J.B.'s natural mother's criminal record, which J.B. did not yet know about at that time. Although A.W. testified with less clarity than might be wished, her most coherent and credible version of subsequent events is that Mrs. Hill swung at her three times with the paper computer printout and one of those swings made contact with A.W.'s face. A.W. also asserted that Mrs. Hill slapped her once in the face with her open hand before A.W. began striking and kicking Mrs. Hill. A.W. testified that she did not know if Mrs. Hill had been trying to grab her or hit her, but that Mrs. Hill's hands were "in my face." J.B. was present during this altercation, and she corroborated A.W.'s assertion that Mrs. Hill slapped A.W. before A.W. struck Mrs. Hill. Once again, Mrs. Hill denied "initiating" any violence, but she offered no other explanation of her actions, and no specific denial that she hit A.W. with the computer photograph before the general fight broke out. It is not disputed, however, that Mr. Hill, who was in another room, heard the commotion between Mrs. Hill and A.W. over the photograph, and came to Mrs. Hill's rescue by bodily removing A.W. to another area of the house. Apparently, neither A.W. nor J.B. thought Mr. Hill's actions were out of line, although he allegedly touched A.W.'s stomach when he carried her out of the room to cool-off. A.W.'s testimony that Mr. Hill hung her upside down but placed her upright on her feet without hurting her is incredible, but also immaterial, because even A.W. admits that she was out of control, that she was unharmed by Mr. Hill, and that Mr. Hill placed her upright on her feet once she was out of striking distance of Mrs. Hill. Mrs. Hill called Boys and Girls Town and demanded that A.W. be removed the night of the incident of the photograph, due to A.W.'s violent behavior. After counseling with both of them, Boys and Girls Town authorities talked Mrs. Hill into keeping A.W. until she could be placed elsewhere. A.W.'s stay with the Hills extended to two weeks, with Boys and Girls Town's approval. This indicates to the undersigned that Boys and Girls Town's social worker had no real-world concern for A.W.'s health and safety while in the Hills' care at that time. After she was removed from the Hills' foster care, A.W. wrote a letter to Mrs. Hill thanking her for her care and apologizing for hitting Mrs. Hill. At the final hearing, A.W. insisted this missive was not inconsistent with her testimony that Mrs. Hill hit her first and she merely retaliated. The removal of J.B. near Christmas 2000, resulted in either a foster care license revocation investigation or child abuse registry investigation or both types of investigation by DCF. Moreover, it appears that Boys and Girls Town mounted an investigation of its own. The outcome of any abuse investigation was not presented at the final hearing herein. However, after DCF's licensing authorities determined that Petitioner's foster care license would not be renewed, another DCF employee contacted Mrs. Smith of Boys and Girls Town, seeking to place a third child, L.T., with Petitioners. Due to her sensitivity to confidentiality issues, Mrs. Smith gave very vague information to the DCF placement employee concerning the status of one or more of the investigations against Petitioners. DCF then either directly placed L.T. with Petitioners or placed L.T. with Petitioners through Boys and Girls Town. The placement of L.T. with Petitioners after A.W. and J.B. had complained against them does not repudiate or mitigate the foregoing Findings of Fact concerning Mrs. Hill's use of corporal punishment. The placement of L.T. with the Hills was purely a mistake which was corrected by the removal of L.T. from Petitioners' care soon thereafter. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hill testified that they had severe behavioral problems with L.T. while he was with them. It is not clear whether they asked for his removal from their home or not.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' application for relicensing as a foster home should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this licensing dispute, Petitioners, Leo and Connie Smith (the Smiths), seek to have their foster care license renewed. In a preliminary decision rendered on October 8, 1999, Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (Department), denied the request on the ground that Petitioners improperly used corporal punishment on a child under their care, and that the Department "cannot [be] assured that [Petitioners] will not lose control again and use excessive corporal punishment." The underlying facts are relatively brief. Petitioners were first issued a therapeutic foster care license in September 1998. Thereafter, and until their application for renewal was denied, they used the license to care for two therapeutic foster children, a type of foster child that has far more severe emotional problems than a regular foster child. On July 25, 1998, or before the license was issued, Connie Smith (Connie) was babysitting a two-year-old child in her home. When the child "messed in its pants" a second time after being previously warned not to do it again, Connie struck the child with a ruler which left bruises on the child's buttocks. The incident was investigated by the Department and culminated in the issuance of an abuse report on October 9, 1998, which is identified as abuse report number 98-084291. Apparently, that report was not contested, for it remains a confirmed report in the abuse registry. Because the Department's background screening on the Smiths was completed in May 1998, or before the abuse incident occurred, the Department was unaware of the matter when it issued the license in September 1998. The abuse report contains an admission by Connie to the mother of the child that "she had lost her temper with the baby" and struck him. At hearing, however, she denied that she "lost control" and maintained instead that the spanking was simply a form of discipline for the child. Even if Connie's version of events is accepted, the fact remains that the child was struck so hard that he suffered bruises on his buttocks. Through accepted testimony presented at hearing, the Department expressed the concern that if Connie lost control supervising a normal two-year-old child, she would have far more difficulty with older children having severe emotional problems, such as therapeutic foster children. This is a legitimate concern, and Petitioners failed to demonstrate that this concern was not well-founded.
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 denying Petitioners' request for renewal of their foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia A. Daire, 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 Leo and Connie Smith 12134 County Road 684 Webster, Florida 33597 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158
The Issue The issues in this case are: whether the Griffin Family Day Care Home violated provisions of chapter 402, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-20,2/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; and whether the Griffin Family Day Care Home's renewal application for a license to operate a regular family day care center should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for inspecting, licensing, and monitoring child care facilities such as the one operated by the Griffin Day Care. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that all such facilities are safe and secure for the protection of the children utilizing those facilities. The Department inspects each licensed day care center three times a year: two unannounced routine inspections (to ensure compliance with the applicable laws and rules) and one renewal application inspection. In the event of a complaint, additional inspections or investigations are conducted. Wanda Griffin owns and operates the Griffin Day Care, a family day care facility licensed by the Department. The facility is located at 1408 Unitah Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, and was in continuous operation at all times material to the issues herein. The facility has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary actions. Lydia Murphy is a child care licensing specialist for the Department. Ms. Murphy is trained to inspect family day care centers for initial applications, renewal applications, and routine inspections. Ms. Murphy is familiar with the facility, having inspected it between 15 to 18 times over the past five to six years. As a result of a complaint being made, DCF conducted an investigation of the facility. On Friday morning, March 23, 2012, a four-year-old child, S.B., was brought to the facility. Following some outside play time, S.B. and the other children came into the facility and were seated at a table for lunch. While Ms. Griffin was retrieving the pizza from the garage, S.B. got up from the table and left the facility via the front door. Ms. Griffin's granddaughter4/ told Ms. Griffin that S.B. was gone. Ms. Griffin immediately began a search for the child. Ms. Griffin contacted 911 and the child's mother. S.B. was located approximately one-half mile from the facility and was returned. There was no testimony about whether or not S.B. was ever in jeopardy while she was unsupervised. Although S.B.'s mother later told Ms. Griffin that S.B. was known to wander off, Ms. Griffin advised S.B.'s mother that she (Ms. Griffin) would no longer take care of S.B. Ms. Griffin admitted this incident occurred. On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Ms. Murphy (and another DCF employee) interviewed Ms. Griffin about the Friday incident. During that interview, Ms. Griffin told Ms. Murphy that the lock on the front door was not engaged, as she (Ms. Griffin) had disengaged it to allow her daughter to enter the facility following medical treatment. At hearing, Ms. Griffin testified that the front door lock had been engaged when S.B. left the facility. When confronted that the incident occurred on a Friday and that she had told Ms. Murphy just four days after the incident (on Tuesday) that the door lock was disengaged for her daughter, Ms. Griffin claimed that her daughter did not go for the medical treatment on that Friday. Ms. Griffin's testimony is not credible. Leviticus Griffin is Ms. Griffin's husband. They lived together in Plant City for a time and, in 2001, moved to Lakeland. Ms. Griffin testified that, when she applied for (the child care) licensure, they were not living together, as she was living "on housing," and Mr. Griffin was living elsewhere. On four or five inspection visits when Ms. Murphy saw a white truck in the drive-way, there was a man present on the facility property. Ms. Murphy did not see him inside the facility. Ms. Murphy was told he was the yardman. Ms. Griffin maintained that Mr. Griffin was not the yardman. Ms. Griffin testified that the yardman was "one of my grandbaby's uncles" and that she had forgotten his name. Ms. Griffin maintained that this yardman had been her yardman "since she had moved in." Ms. Griffin's testimony is not credible. At the hearing, Ms. Griffin claimed that, when Ms. Murphy saw Mr. Griffin at the facility, he was there to talk about health issues. On the 2012 renewal application, submitted on May 8, Ms. Griffin did not report that Mr. Griffin was residing in the facility. As she was reviewing the 2012 renewal application, Ms. Murphy saw a copy of Mr. Griffin's driver's license and identified him as the yardman she had seen at the facility. In performing the required renewal application investigation in May 2012, Ms. Murphy "put two and two together" and decided that Mr. Griffin was living in the facility. Ms. Murphy investigated Mr. Griffin. Ms. Murphy determined Mr. Griffin had two disqualifying offenses that would preclude his living at the facility unless or until he received an exemption from those disqualifying offenses. Ms. Murphy called and told Ms. Griffin that she was adding Mr. Griffin's name to the 2012 renewal application as a person living in the facility. Ms. Griffin did not object to Mr. Griffin's name being added to this application and indicated she "was going to add him to the license." Although Ms. Murphy testified she spoke with the landlord, Fred Leslie, about who was living in the facility, that testimony is hearsay and was uncorroborated through other competent evidence or testimony. At some undetermined time, a copy of Ms. Griffin's 2008 rental application5/ (Exhibit 2) was provided to DCF. That rental application, which Ms. Griffin executed on June 2, 2008, does not contain an address on the "Rental Property Address" line, nor is it a rental agreement. The name, "Leviticus Griffin," is on the rental application as an additional occupant of the property; however, there is no evidence that this application was for the facility property. Ms. Griffin maintained that Mr. Griffin was not living at the facility at that time, but that he lived elsewhere. DCF presented a certified copy (Exhibit 5) of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Intranet Records Information System (IRIS). IRIS documented multiple vehicle transactions and driver license transactions involving Mr. Griffin. IRIS reflects that Mr. Griffin's address, as of the "Issue Date" for this record, March 4, 2008, was that of the facility. Mr. Griffin did not testify in this proceeding. Five of the six DCF applications or renewal applications (Exhibit 3)6/ for licensure submitted by the facility identify no one other than Ms. Griffin as living in the facility. The sixth application, the 2012 renewal application form, reflects Ms. Griffin's name on one line and Mr. Griffin's name on the second line where Ms. Murphy inserted and dated the addition. It is noted that the 2007 DCF "renewal" application is for an address different than the address at issue. Beatriz Blanco is a DCF exemption screening specialist with over six years of experience. Mr. Griffin first came to Ms. Blanco's attention in May 2012. Mr. Griffin submitted a request for an exemption. Ms. Blanco wrote Mr. Griffin asking him to provide information about two disqualifying offenses. In July 2012, Ms. Blanco received a partially-completed application from Mr. Griffin. In late July 2012, a letter seeking additional information was sent to Mr. Griffin at his address of record, 1408 Unitah Avenue, the same as the facility. As of February 6, 2013, Mr. Griffin had not submitted any additional information for further consideration of his exemption request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding the Griffin Family Day Care Home committed the Class I violations, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00, and denying its renewal application. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 28th day of February, 2013.
