The Issue Whether Petitioner's application to adopt L. H. should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Debby Sclafani (Sclafani), is a former foster parent for Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (Department). On March 4, 1998, L. H., a foster child born on December 18, 1993, was placed in Sclafani's home. L. H. had been sexually abused when she lived with her biological mother. When she came to live with Sclafani, L. H. acted out sexually, including masturbating. L. H. also engaged in self-mutilating behavior and had nightmares. L. H. was being seen by Marion Koch, a therapist at the Center for Children in Crisis. In midsummer of 1998, Sclafani also began seeing a therapist, Gloria Watt, at the Center for Children in Crisis. During the therapy sessions with Sclafani, Ms. Watt became concerned with Sclafani's preoccupation with L. H.'s sexual behavior. Ms. Watt told the therapist that she had asked L. H. which finger she used when masturbating and to demonstrate what she did. The child complied with Sclafani's request. If Sclafani caught L. H. masturbating, she would take the child's stuffed toys away as punishment. Ms. Koch and Ms. Watt attempted to educate Sclafani about parenting and child development, including ways to redirect L. H.'s sexual behavior. The therapists told Sclafani to stop focusing on L. H.'s masturbation, but Sclafani was unable to deal with the child's sexual behavior and could not follow the suggestions of the therapists. In September 1998, the Center for Children in Crisis shut down, and the therapy sessions with L. H. and Sclafani stopped. Sometime during the fall of 1998, the parental rights of L. H.'s mother were terminated. It was the Department's policy that once a parent's rights are terminated, the foster parent should not talk to the child again about the parent. However, after L. H.'s mother's rights were terminated, Sclafani continued to pray with L. H. for L. H.'s mother's sins. Sometime after L. H.'s mother's parental rights were terminated, L. H.'s father's parental rights were also terminated. L. H. became a candidate for adoption, and her case was transferred to the adoption section of the Department. Sclafani applied to the Department to adopt L. H. L. H. was given a pre-adoptive psychological evaluation by Dr. Shelia King. L. H. told Dr. King that Sclafani spanked her and slapped her face. L. H. had been told by Sclafani not to tell the doctor that she had been spanked. When L. H. was returned home after the evaluation with Dr. King, L. H. told Sclafani, "The doctor knows that you whoop me." When Sclafani became L. H.'s foster parent, she signed an "Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for Dependent Children" and agreed to abide by the following provisions of the agreement: This child is placed in our home on a temporary basis and is at all times under the supervision of the Department. We are fully and directly responsible to the Department for the care of the child. We will take no action to acquire legal custody or guardianship of the child. We will hold confidential all information about the child and his family and will discuss such information only with a representative of the Department or with appropriate specialists at the request of the Department. * * * 8. We will participate with the Department in planning for the child, which may include adoption placement, transfer to another foster home, or return to parent(s) or relative(s). * * * We will comply will all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the Department. We will immediately report any injuries or illnesses of a child in our care to the Department. * * * 19. We will abide by the Department's discipline policy which we received during MAPP training. Sclafani agreed to and executed the Department's discipline policy which states, "The substitute care parents must not use corporal punishment of any kind." Sclafani admitted to spanking L. H. on several occasions. The Department referred Sclafani to Dr. Shelia King for a psychological evaluation on January 5, 1999. In her evaluation report, Dr. King stated: . . . [Sclafani] would come to expect a child to fill her needs as opposed to her filling the child's. Should a conflict arise, Ms. Sclafani would put her own needs first. As an aside, she would not accept or believe this was occurring. Due to her inability to take care of herself emotionally, she will become depressed and withdrawn from time to time. * * * It must be noted that no small measure of concern results from the fact that Ms. Sclafani attempted to prep this child prior to her (the child's) evaluation by admonishing her not to advise this psychologist of the fact that Ms. Sclafani spanks her upon occasion. This indicates that while aware that this is not a behavior which would be acceptable to the Department of Children and Families, she nevertheless will engage in it as a method of discipline. More distressing is that she then not only will lie about it herself but also encourage the child to do something which is clearly wrong and tell a lie by omission in order to protect herself. A more appropriate response would be to merely admit that she believes spanking is an appropriate form of punishment and seek advice on how to handle misbehavior in a more acceptable fashion. * * * The area of concern most prominent in this evaluation is Ms. Sclafani's relationships. Testing indicates someone who is narcissistic and dependent upon others, including her child, for validation and self-esteem. Her history suggests a lack of boundaries between her own parent and herself. Some of Ms. Sclafani's comments suggest this same lack of awareness and boundaries with her foster child. While she does seem open to listening to interpretations and looking at her own behavior, testing also indicates that while she may appear to do so, anger and resentment build, eventually causing her to deny any problems or to reach out for help, and inhibit what appears to be genuine insight. Dr. King recommended that the adoption proceedings be delayed and that Sclafani enter individual psychotherapy. Sclafani had begun working at a child care center, and her medical benefits did not begin until April 1999. Due to the lack of insurance, Sclafani postponed seeing a therapist until April. She attended therapy sessions two times. In May 1999, Sclafani engaged in a verbal altercation with her supervisor at the day care center where she worked. She told her supervisor that she was giving her thirty-day notice and quitting her job. The supervisor informed her that was not necessary because she was fired. The bottom line was that Sclafani was without a job and medical benefits. She had inherited some money from her father's estate and decided to take a vacation. When the Department learned that Sclafani was without a job, a decision was made to remove L. H. from Sclafani's foster home. On May 21, 1999, L. H. was removed from her day care center and placed in another foster home with a couple who have applied to adopt her. Sclafani was asked to pack a suitcase for L. H. with her clothes and other belongings. Sclafani did pack the suitcase, but she also hid notes to the child among the clothes in the suitcase. A few days after L. H. was removed from Sclafani's care, Sclafani met with L. H., her guardian ad litem, and representatives from the Department to bring closure to the placement. Sclafani became very emotional during the meeting, which upset the child. On July 1, 1999, Sclafani went to the day care center where L. H. had been placed by her new foster parents to see L. H. Sclafani told the assistant director of the day care center that she was inquiring about the pre-kindergarten class for a neighbor's child. The assistant director took her to the classroom where L. H. was in class. Sclafani immediately walked over to L. H. and asked her if she were happy. Sclafani told L. H. that if L. H. was not happy that she would fight for her. L. H. began to cry hysterically. The assistant director realized who Sclafani was and asked her to leave the building. On the same day as the day care incident, L. H. and her foster father were eating ice cream outside an ice cream shop located in a shopping plaza. L. H. told her foster father that she saw Sclafani, who was in her car turning up a lane in the parking lot. A few minutes later, Sclafani drove by again in the opposite direction, waved at L. H., and left the shopping plaza. Prior to the incidents at the day care center and the shopping plaza, L. H. had been transitioning to her new home very well. Following the incident at the day care center, L. H.'s play in therapy became aggressive, and L. H. told her therapist that she was afraid Sclafani would take her and expressed anxiety about the likelihood of this happening. Because of Sclafani's actions, the Department sought a restraining order against Sclafani. On July 29, 1999, Judge Ronald V. Alvarez entered an Order Granting Emergency Petition for Injunction, ordering that Sclafani refrain from contacting L. H. wherever the child may be found while the court had jurisdiction over the child. In the order, the court stated: . . . Contact with Ms. Sclafani will hinder the child's future attachment with another family and create more, further damaging confusion in the child's life. The child's permanency is undermined by Ms. Sclafani's contact or attempted contact with her. The granting of a protective order is necessary to prevent such acts from happening. Permanency with her new family cannot be attained until [L. H.] is free to live without the fear of interruption by Ms. Sclafani. This order is necessary to protect the child's emotional and mental health from being at risk of grave and lasting harm and to support her permanency. Since L. H. has been removed from Sclafani's home, she has ceased masturbating and no longer self-mutilates. She is happy and well adjusted in her new home. According to her guardian ad litem, L. H. has blossomed and is now being a child in contrast to her actions when she was with Sclafani, where L. H. appeared to be "cowed" by Sclafani. L. H. has always wanted a daddy, and now she has a foster father in her new home. Sclafani had chosen a friend to be L. H.'s father figure. Unfortunately, her choice had an active, non-expiring domestic violence restraining order against him. L. H. loves her new foster parents and wants to be adopted by them. The new foster parents love L. H. and want to adopt her. Since L. H. has been with her new foster parents, she has not asked to see Sclafani. Sclafani had listed her pastor and his wife as a reference on her application for adoption. The pastor and his wife indicated on the reference that they did not know Sclafani well enough to make a recommendation that she was qualified to adopt a child. In order to process the adoption application, the Department looks at the applicant's medical history. Sclafani's medical records reflect a high frequency of doctor visits and current, on-going prescriptions for anti-anxiety medications. The evidence was unclear if Sclafani had found gainful employment since the termination of her employment in May 1999. The evidence did show that while she was a foster parent for L. H. that she worked for three different employers and was unemployed when L. H. was removed from her care.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Debby Sclafani's application to adopt. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jane Fitzgerald, Esquire Harvey Building, Suite 1300 224 Datura Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Debby Sclafani 7581 West Lantana Road Lake Worth, Florida 33467 Samuel C. Chavers, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 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
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the foster care license of Joe and Fatima Landon.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the home of Joe and Fatima Landon was licensed by the Department of Children and Family Services as a foster home, having been issued License No. 0900-17 by the Department. On January 31, 2001, the Department received a report alleging that a child in the Landons' care, K.N.F., had two scrapes on her left hand that might constitute abuse. As a result of these allegations, Harvey Clark and Kevin Daniels, Child Protective Investigators employed by the Department, went to the Landons' home on the day of the alleged incident to investigate. Deputy Steven Parker of the Clay County Sheriff's Office also went to the Landons' to investigate. At the time of the hearing, K.N.F. was seven years old. She recalled that on the day of the incident, Mrs. Landon was driving her and another foster child to school. K.N.F. was reading in the back seat of the van. K.N.F. was trying to sound out the words and was unable to sound them out properly. Mrs. Landon turned around and Mrs. Landon's hand hit K.N.F.'s hand. K.N.F. described the incident as follows, "She turned around. And I was holding my hand on the book. She was going to point to the word, but my hand was there." She perceived Mrs. Landon to be angry, but also thought that Mrs. Landon was pointing to the word and hit her hand by accident.2 K.N.F. was referred to the Child Protection Team for an examination of her injury. She was examined by Dr. Bruce J. McIntosh. Dr. McIntosh found two abrasions, or scrapes, on the back of her left hand near the thumb. It was Dr. McIntosh's opinion that the abrasions were inconsistent with the injury being an accident in that one would not be pointing at something with "such force and velocity" to produce two abrasions to the hand. Notwithstanding Dr. McIntosh's testimony, the abrasions are best described in the photographs taken the day of the incident which reveal two small reddish abrasions on K.N.F.'s left hand. The evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Mrs. Landon reaching around to K.N.F. caused the abrasions on K.N.F.'s hand. Dr. McIntosh determined that the abrasions did not require specific treatment. However, he recommended that K.N.F. and the other foster child in the car be removed from the Landons because it was his impression that the children were afraid of Mrs. Landon. This impression was based primarily on statements made to him by K.N.F. and the other foster child during his examination, which are hearsay. K.N.F. and the other foster children were then removed from the Landons' home by the Department. At the time of the incident, Tanya Lee was employed by the Jacksonville Youth Sanctuary, a private organization contracted by the Department to provide foster care services, as a foster care case worker. She was the case worker for the two other foster children in the Landons' home. She visited the home frequently and found a happy, stable environment. She found the Landons to be very supportive and nurturing of the foster children including what she witnessed with K.N.F. during her home visits. Ms. Lee conducted exit interviews of the children for whom she was the case worker when they were removed from the home after the incident. It was her impression that the children felt safe in the Landons' home and wanted to be placed back with the Landons. This impression was based on the statements made by the children during the exit interviews and are hearsay.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order rescinding its revocation of the Landons' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2002.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners R.G. and M.G. were licensed as foster parents and their home as a Children Youth and Families foster home for dependent children at all times pertinent hereto. The Respondent is an agency of the state of Florida charged with licensure of foster parents and foster homes and with regulating and enforcing the standards of care of children placed in such foster homes as dependent children. This dispute apparently arose on or about April 18, 1990 when M.G., the foster mother, brought the M. children to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services office on that date to talk with a foster care counselor about problems experienced with the M. children in her home. Apparently the visit to the Department's office arose because M.G. had discovered that one of the children had allegedly stolen one or more articles from a local store in the community, or believed that she had, and was seeking the advise and council of Department's representative concerning the manner in which to address that perceived problem. During the course of that encounter with the Department's representative the M. children or some of them related incidents occurring in the home in the past while they were placed in the custody of the Petitioners which they felt involved or constituted mistreatment by M.G. Upon learning of these reports Department personnel removed the children from the G. home on April 18, 1990. No other children have been placed by the Respondent in the G. foster home since that time. Michelle M. testified that Petitioner M.G. called Marie M. a bitch, a whore and a slut on one occasion and gave Marie M. "the bird" (an obscene gesture). Michelle M. testified that M.G. called Marie M. a slut and stated that "she's just going to grow up to be a whore." Apparently Marie M. and Michelle M. had reported that M.G. called Marie M. a whore when Marie M. told M.G. about borrowing fifty cents from a boy at school. At the hearing, however, Marie M. testified that she borrowed fifty cents from a boy at school and that when M.G. learned of it she said "it would make her look like a whore." Mandy M. testified that M.G. thought that Mandy had called her "a faggot" and that, instead, she told her that she had called her sister that name but that M.G. did not believe her and sent her to her room and shoved her into the room whereupon she fell and hit herself against the bed or bedpost by accident. Michelle M. testified that on a church hayride a boy threw hay and hit M.G. in the face whereupon, thinking Michelle M. had done it, that M.G. hit Michelle on the leg with a flashlight. Mandy M. testified that M.G. hit Michelle on the leg with a flashlight, but her testimony revealed she knew nothing of that incident and her description of it was related to her by one of her sisters. Additionally, Marie M. testified that she saw M.G. pick up an infant by one arm from a crib and scold it for crying as she was picking the infant up to hold the infant in her arms. Michelle and Marie M. testified that M.G. held Marie M.'s mouth open and shoved red hot sauce into her mouth with a spoon as punishment for some perceived infraction. Marie M. testified that M.G. threw hot tea or hot water on the face of Marie M. while the child was asleep on a couch. M.G. categorically denies all the allegations made by the girls, the foster children in question referenced above. She denies ever making obscene gestures, ("the bird"), at any of the girls and denies calling them names such as bitch, slut or whore. She concedes that she may have admonished them or one of them about not "acting like a slut or a whore," etc. She also denies ever having administered hot sauce to any of the children. She said that on one occasion she gave Mandy some mustard on a teaspoon when the child inquired what it tasted like because she had never tasted mustard. She gave her a small amount of it just to show her how it tasted. She denies ever throwing hot tea or hot water on the face of any of the children and denies causing any of the children injury, specifically concerning the bedroom incident when the child apparently bruised her back falling against the bed. M.G. did use confinement for brief periods in a child's room as a form of discipline for inappropriate conduct in the home. She also denies hitting Michelle M. on the leg with a flashlight during the church hayride. In fact due to her position in the haywagon at the other end of the wagon from the child in question, it would have been impossible for her to reach over and hit her with a flashlight and that incident did not occur. M.G.'s testimony concerning the children's conduct and family life in the home with the children is to the effect that the older two girls, particularly the oldest, Michelle M., had a tendency to lie in order to "get their way"; that the girls were unruly and that they, particularly Michelle, used their relationship with HRS to try to intimidate the foster parents, particularly M.G. They had threatened to report M.G. for improper behavior towards the children in the home. The children resented the foster parents authority. Her testimony describes in detail, as do the exhibits submitted by the Petitioners, consisting of the monthly reports M.G. made to HRS, the progress of the girls and conditions generally in the foster home. This testimony and evidence shows that the Petitioners generally provided the children a good, wholesome home environment, with extensive involvement in school and church activities and with ample wholesome recreation activities at the home site on a lake. During the tenure of the girls in the Petitioners' home their scholastic progress improved markedly such that they were all earning "A and B" grades in school and otherwise were progressing well in school. M.G.'s testimony established that the Petitioners were providing a wholesome home environment for the children and were generally conscientious about caring for the children's needs, including medical needs, and with maintaining contact with and reporting to HRS concerning the children's living conditions and their progress in the home and in the school and church environment. The testimony of M.G. to the general effect that the older girls, particularly the oldest child, had a tendency to threaten reporting the parents or M.G. to HRS concerning their conduct as foster parents and their willingness to lie in an attempt to get their way or to intimidate the foster parents is corroborated by the letter in evidence as corroborative hearsay authored by Linda Kennedy. She is an acquaintance of the Petitioners associated with the Petitioners through the foster parent program. That letter indicates that when the girls were being taken to HRS to make statements concerning the incidents in question that they were reported to have said that they wanted to "get back at her" meaning M.G., the Petitioner and that Marie was heard to instruct Mandy not to talk to a lawyer because she "now liked M.G." and that Michelle had commented to the effect that she "wanted to really get her," meaning M.G. This information is taken from a hearsay letter in evidence pursuant to the above cited provision of Section 120.58, Florida Statutes but it corroborates the testimony to the same general effect of M.G. and corroborates testimony of Mandy who, after describing in her testimony some of the alleged parental abuse by M.G., testified that her sisters had asked her to say things to hurt M.G. Because of these revelations contained in the testimony of Mandy M. and the testimony of M.G., as corroborated by the letter in evidence authored by Linda Kennedy, it is deemed that the testimony of the three children can be accorded scant credibility and resultant weight. Accordingly the testimony of M.G. and Petitioner R.G. is accepted over that of the testimony of the three children testifying for the Respondent and it is found that the incidents described by the three children did not occur or did not occur in the way described by the three children such that they can not be deemed to have constituted abusive, disciplinary parenting practices and prohibited disciplinary practices. The testimony of Donna M. establishes that she has overseen the operation and management of foster homes in her capacity with the Department for many years. After the M. children were removed from M.G. and her husband and their foster home she had a number of telephone conversations with M.G. M.G. appeared to her, based upon her observance and her experience, to seem "fairly incoherent" during those telephone conversations on occasion. Consequently she recommended to M.G. that, in the course of the controversy concerning whether or not the foster home should be relicensed, that M.G. obtain a psychological evaluation. M.G. apparently scheduled that evaluation, appeared at the psychologist's office but, as shown by Petitioner's exhibit 5, the psychologist's report, apparently did not genuinely feel that she needed to get an evaluation. She rather merely consulted the psychologist concerning his advice to her about her dealings with HRS. He declined to render such advice and no psychological evaluation was ever made. In view of Ms. Mimms testimony, which is accepted, and in view of the comments made in the letter of Ms. Kennedy, and from the hearing officer's observance of the demeanor of M.G. and consideration of her testimony, it is deemed appropriate that a psychological evaluation of M.G. be obtained as a condition upon relicensure.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services granting the application for relicensure of the Petitioners as a Children Youth and Families foster home for dependent children, conditioned on the obtaining of a satisfactory psychological evaluation of M.G. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5842 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (The Petitioners submitted no proposed findings of fact which can be independently and specifically ruled upon). - I. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight and credibility of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire HRS District 1 Legal Office P.O. Box 8420 Pensacola, FL 32505-0420 Ronald and Marjorie Grover 4713 Radio Road Milton, FL 32583 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are whether Respondents' foster home license should be revoked as stated in an Amended Administrative Complaint dated October 6, 1999, and whether Mrs. Sampson's request to adopt a child, A.H., should be denied as explained in a letter dated October 6, 1999.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Children and Family Services is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating foster homes. It also is responsible for receiving and approving applications for adoptions. John Henry and Annette Sampson live in Plant City, Florida. They have been married approximately 24 years. They have adult children and three adopted children, one of whom is their biological grandson. The other two children, both boys, were foster children whom they raised from infancy (R.S., age 10; and D.S., age 9). Mrs. Sampson, a licensed practical nurse (LPN), met R.S. when she cared for him in the hospital following his birth. He had many medical problems and his biological mother was unable to care for him. Mrs. Sampson bonded with the child and sought and received a special foster home license so she and her husband could take him home. R.S. thrived in the care of the Sampsons despite his poor prognosis. The Sampsons were thus licensed as a foster home in 1990, and over an 8-year period cared for 14 foster children, most of whom had complex medical problems. A.H. was placed with the Sampsons when he was approximately one-month old in 1993. He had been exposed to drugs during gestation and had complicated medical problems at birth. He also thrived in the Sampson's home despite poor prognosis for survival. He bonded with the family and considers the Sampsons his parents and the three other adopted children as his brothers. By November 1997, when the children were removed from the Sampson home, Mrs. Sampson had already requested permission to adopt A.H. and was working with the agency on the details of a subsidy for the child. Also living with the Sampsons in November 1997 were two female foster children: A., who was 7 years old and was profoundly mentally handicapped; and M., who was 6 years old, partially paralyzed, and mentally handicapped. The two girls were placed with the Sampsons in February and May 1997; both had been previously subjected to horrific abuse and both began to respond positively, physically and mentally, to the loving care of the Sampsons. The events which led to removal of children from the Sampson home commenced in September 1997. Because of her mental condition M. was considered a danger to herself. She had poor impulse control and ate or chewed clothing, bedding, feces, and anything she could get in her mouth. A Childrens Medical Services (CMS) physician had prescribed restraints for her and Mrs. Sampson used then sparingly. Generally she would restrain M. when she put her to bed at night and would remove the restraints when the child fell asleep. One evening in September 1997, Mrs. Sampson put M. to bed with her restraints. Shortly later Mrs. Sampson went to work on her part-time nursing shift and forgot to tell Mr. Sampson to remove the restraints. The next morning when she returned home Mrs. Sampson found the child still restrained by her wrist, with some swelling. When she took M. to school Mrs. Sampson pointed out the swelling to the school nurse and explained what happened. Because of their routine practice to notify a caseworker of any marks on a foster child, the nurse or M's teacher called the agency. Neither the nurse nor the teacher was concerned about abuse in this case. As a result of the report an abuse investigation commenced and Jim Cunningham, a Child Protection Investigator, took M. to the Child Protection Team (CPT) physician for an examination. Dr. Laleh Bahar-Posey was the CPT medical director. In her medical examination Dr. Posey noted circular marks on the child's left forearm and both ankles, consistent with ligature and consistent with her being tied to the bed. In her testimony at hearing Dr. Posey clarified that she had confirmed during the medical examination that the leg marks were caused by M.'s braces and that Mrs. Sampson had only restrained one wrist. Because the report remained unchanged, however, the agency persisted until the hearing in its assertion that M. had been bound by her arms and legs overnight. Dr. Posey also noted in her examination of M. that the child had a mark on her left forearm that appeared to be an iron burn. Because of the position of the point of the burn, facing the outside of the arm, and because of the child's partially immobile right hand and arm, Dr. Posey and the CPT social worker surmised that the burn was not accidental nor self-inflicted. Mrs. Sampson's explaination of the burn was that her daughter-in-law had been ironing in another room of the home and briefly left the iron unattended. Mrs. Sampson was summoned by a yell from M. Mrs. Sampson immediately saw the child's burn and treated it with salve and a bandage. The next day Ms. Sampson told the school nurse about the burn and asked whether she should take M. to the doctor. The nurse examined the burn and determined that it was minor, was not even blistered, and was barely visible. She did not recommend that Mrs. Sampson take M. to the doctor and the nurse understood that M. could have accidentally caused the burn herself. Although she cannot use her right hand and arm, M. swings the arm as she walks. She is very clumsy and her gait is unsteady. The burn mark according to the weight of credible testimony is wholly consistent with M.'s knocking the iron against her left forearm while flaying her right arm around the ironing board. The pink mark in the healing stage was much more evident on M.'s dark skin than it would have been on a Caucasian child. The final incident leading to removal of the children from the Sampson home was a report to the agency on or about November 17, 1997, that M. had broken her arm about 3 weeks earlier. The Child Protective Investigator obtained the medical records from South Florida Baptist Hospital in Plant City and concluded that because the break was identified as a spinal fracture, requiring a twisting motion, the injury was an "inflicted injury." The agency immediately made plans to remove all children from the Sampson home and took the records to Dr. Posey for review. Dr. Posey's notes after her review of the medical records conclude that the injury was not consistent with Mrs. Sampson's alleged history that the child fell while briefly unattended in the bathroom. Dr. Posey's notes state her "grave concerns" about the safety of this child and other children in the home. Agency staff, including the Child Protection Investigator, a supervisor, and foster care and adoption counsellors convened at the Sampson home on the evening of November 17, 1987. Mrs. Sampson was not home, and Mr. Sampson was home with the three adopted children and the three foster children (A.H., A., and M.). The staff removed the children from the home and placed them in other foster homes or shelter homes. Several things concerned the staff when they were in the process of removing the children. Lesa Simms, the adoption supervisor, saw A.'s braids tied to her bed and Mr. Sampson quickly loosened them. When asked where the girls' clothes and medicine were stored Mr. Sampson said that he took care of the boys and did not know much about the girls. Several staff noticed that prescription bottles and loose pills were left in the kitchen, some on the counter, others in a cabinet within reach of some of the children. One of the staff had to call the pharmacy to find out which medications went with each child. After the children were removed from the Sampson home Ms. Sampson's application to adopt A.H. was reviewed by the agency's Adoption Review Committee which recommended the application be denied. Although the committee members were aware of Mrs. Sampson's prior glowing record as an adoptive and foster parent, the series of three injuries to M. was too serious to ignore. The agency also initiated revocation of the Sampson's foster home license. The Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 98- 1928 states these bases for the intended revocation: A foster child in your care was bound by her arms and legs overnight resulting in ligature marks on the child. The foster mother, Ms. Sampson, stated she forgot to remove the restraints. Section 409.175(8)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. A foster child in your care received a spiral fracture on her arm when she was in the bathtub. Medical authority states the injury inflicted was inconsistent with the explanation given by you during the Child Protection Investigation. Section 409.175(8)(b)1, Florida Statutes. A foster child in your care received an iron burn on her arm. The child was seen by a physician who stated the injury was not consistent with the account given by you. Her conclusion was that the iron burn appeared to be consistent with an inflicted injury. Section 409.175(8)(b)1, Florida Statutes. During a visit to your home by department staff, medicine bottles with their safety lids removed were not stored in an appropriate place out of the reach of the children. The bottles were filled with various drugs, such as anti-psychotics, amphetamines, and other drugs that were within reach of most of the foster children in the home. There were loose pills in the cabinet above the counter, along with hot pepper flakes also within reach of most of the foster children in the home. You were out of town according to your husband, who stated he did not know anything about the girl's issues, Section 409.1275(8)(b)2, Florida Statutes, and 65C-13.010(1)(b)7.d, Florida Administrative Code. A staff individual observed Mr. Sampson untying a child's hair from the crib, Section 409.175(8)(b)(2), Florida Statutes and Rule 65C-010(1)(b)5.e, Florida Administrative Code. The October 6, 1999, letter informing Mrs. Sampson of the adoption request denial states: The Administrative Rule 65C-16 currently in effect provides that "if allegations of abuse/neglect or abandonment have been verified, the application must be rejected and referral to the Adoption Applicant Review Committee is not required." Despite this provision, the Adoptive Applicant Review Committee and the district administrator reviewed your application. It was decided that your application would be rejected based upon the facts involved in the Florida Protective Services System reports #97-103474 and #1997-126233, not just the disposition decision of these two reports. Abuse report 1997-103474 had a finding of "some indicators" of burns/scalds with regard to the burn on M.'s left arm. Abuse report 1997-126233 was "verified" for bone fracture/neglect and inadequate supervision and conditions hazardous to a child. The evidence in this protracted consolidated proceeding does not support the agency's intended actions. There is no evidence that Mrs. Sampson abused M. or any other child in her care. The ligature marks, the burn, and the broken arm were each explained by competent experts as accidents which would not be unusual in any normal family and which were entirely consistent with the history offered by Mrs. Sampson. The injuries were certainly consistent with M.'s complex mental and physical condition. In a child under twelve months of age and not walking, a spiral fracture would be an immediate cause for concern. But in an older child such as M., a spiral fracture would occur in a fall when the limb is immobilized on impact and the body twists around it. A deliberate twisting by Mrs. Sampson or someone else would have left such marks on the child's arm that the physicians who saw her in the emergency room immediately after the accident would have been alerted. Instead, no physician who treated M. ever suspected abuse. Dr. Posey did not see her, but instead only viewed the X-rays and the conclusion by Dr. Del Toro, the emergency room radiologist, that the fracture was a "spiral fracture." There is no evidence of false or "inconsistent" histories of the injury reported by Mrs. Sampson. She did not see the child fall; she was bathing M. and left the bathroom briefly; when she returned, the child was on the floor. This account is still consistent with her account to the psychologist, Dr. Whyte, that when she attempted to pick up the child they both fell. In hearing, and in her interview with Dr. Whyte, Dr. Posey receded from her former opinion that the fracture had to be non-accidental. Only one agency staff person observed Mr. Sampson's "untying" A.'s braids from her bed although approximately six individuals, including a law enforcement officer, were at the Sampsons' home gathering the children. The action as described by Ms. Simms was very quick. It might have been as benign as untangling the child's hair which was caught in the bed. Mr. Sampson unequivocaly denies that the child's hair was tied; other agency witnesses testified that they followed Ms. Simms and saw M. sitting or standing in her crib, not lying down with her hair tied. The medications were improperly stored but were inaccessible to most of the children. According to agency witnesses this violation would not have been a basis for denial of an adoption or license revocation. No one, including agency workers who had visited the home many times, announced or unannounced, had ever had a problem with storage of medications at the Sampson home. In fact, no one, not the psychologist, not adoption workers, teachers, co-workers, licensing staff nor physicians who had observed the Sampson children in the home, at school, or in the community, ever saw anything other than loving, caring, conscientious parenting by the Sampsons. Mrs. Sampson could be aggressive and demanding, but always as an advocate for the children. She made requests for special equipment, like a Geri-chair, that would help the children become more self-reliant. She minimized the use of physical restraints and she consulted with the physicians on reducing medications that she felt were keeping M. over-sedated. She bought lovely clothes and cooked special foods for the children and by all reported observations the children, adopted and foster children, thrived and were happy. The dependency proceeding was resolved with a directed verdict against the agency and the Sampsons' adopted children were returned to their home. A.H. now needs to be returned home as well and Mrs. Sampson's adoption request approved. The allegations which were the basis for the Adoption Application Review Committee's recommendation and the District Administrator's acceptance were not proven and there is a preponderance of affirmative proof that the adoption request should be granted in A.H.'s best interests. A.H. bonded with the Sampsons and their children and the passage of time since his removal from the home has not broken that bond. He still begs to go home to them. The psychologist, Dr. Whyte, who evaluated the Sampsons at the agency's referral, and the adoptions caseworker for A.H. both urge that it is in his best interests to be adopted by Mrs. Sampson. A.H.'s current foster mother, who is herself willing to adopt A.H., testified that A.H. should be adopted by the Sampsons as he loves them and considers them his parents. As established with testimony of the agency's own witnesses, evidence of the accidental, not deliberate, injuries to M., coupled with the one-time improper storage of medications, would not support a decision to revoke the foster home license. Instead, in these circumstances foster parents would be asked to sign a letter of compliance. The foster home license expired in 1998, after the children were removed from the home. In April 1998 Dr. Whyte recommended that the girls, with their complex medical problems and extraordinary care-taking demands, be placed in a therapeutic home where 24-hour care could be provided without the conflicting demands of other obligations. Circumstances in the Sampson household have changed since 1997 and 1998 when Mr. Sampson moved out, and the record does not clearly reflect whether he currently resides in the home. The adopted children have grown older and one child may be leaving to go to college. The Sampsons have also grown older. They should be permitted to reapply for a license based on the prior expiration of their license and not based on a revocation action which is not supported in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that the agency enter its final order: returning A.H. immediately to Mrs. Sampson; approving her application to adopt A.H.; and granting the Sampsons leave to apply for foster home license without any prejudice of the allegations stated in the agency's October 6, 1999, revocation letter. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 August, 2000.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application to become adoptive parents with the Department should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in November 1993, Petitioners were foster parents licensed by the Department. They stopped fostering in 1997. On March 25, 1997, Petitioners submitted an application to become adoptive parents through the Department. On August 22, 1997, an adoptive home study was completed by Ms. Townsend, supervisor of adoption and out-of-home care for the Department and adoption counselor for Petitioners. Among other things, the home study consisted of an interview with Petitioners and a review of Petitioners' history as foster parents. Ms. Townsend testified that when asked, Petitioners said they wanted to adopt a little girl under four. However, because of the age desired, such a child is not a special needs child. After completion of her review, Ms. Townsend identified the following needs in Petitioners: Appear to allow emotions to influence their judgment. Appear to be inflexible when presented an opinion different from their own where children are concerned. Seem to have unrealistic "love conquers all" attitude about special needs children. Appear to have trouble defining boundaries in their relationships with children. Need to develop more structure and objectivity when dealing with special needs children. It appears that they may, unintentionally, encourage the dependence of children on them in an effort to demonstrate their love. May need to examine more closely their motivation and apparent need to have a child. Need to develop a more positive working relationship with the Department. The needs referenced above were based on the interviews with Petitioners and their history as foster parents. Ms. Townsend also identified several strengths that Petitioners had as adoptive applicants. These strengths were: Family has knowledge and experience with special needs children. Committed and sincere desire to adopt. Willingness to take an active role in the lives of children. Demonstrated ability to accept children regardless of their problems. Provide assurance to children that they are loved and cared about. Open, verbal, and demonstrative people. Actively pursue what is in the best interest of children. Stable marriage of twenty-five years. Stable and well kept home with space available for expanding the family. Stable and more than adequate employment and income. Based upon her assessment of Petitioners, Ms. Townsend felt Petitioners' deficiencies outweighed their strengths. She recommended denial of Petitioners' application and that they pursue adoption of a non-special needs child. Per Department procedure, an adoptive applicant review committee was convened to consider Petitioners' application. The committee consisted of Ms. Winters, operations management specialist; chairperson, Mary Alegretti; Diane Rickman; Sheila Sinkfield; and Donna Veline. The committee report attached the foster parent adoptive home study, the foster parent re-licensing study, the original foster home study, a memorandum from Tom Waltz, foster child licensing counselor, dated January 8, 1997, a memorandum from Tom Waltz dated August 19, 1994, and a memorandum from Michele Shaner, foster care counselor, dated October 5, 1994, and the individual recommendations of all the committee members. The attachments to the committee's report identified difficulties Petitioners had concerning foster children previously in their care. Those documents related specific concerns based on incidents regarding foster children J.J., H.J., and D.C. The committee identified the following areas of concern for Petitioners: They really do not want to adopt a special needs child. When the adoption counselor pointed out to them on more than one occasion that the type of child they were describing was not special needs, they then said they would consider a sibling group, as long as one of the siblings was a little girl. It appears they have had problems in establishing appropriate parent-child relationships with appropriate boundaries. R.R. and P.R. did not respond appropriately when a foster child in their home was on runaway status; they withheld information from the Department concerning her possible whereabouts. Based on those concerns, the committee unanimously recommended denial of Petitioners' application to become adoptive parents. District legal counsel and the district administrator concurred with that recommendation. Petitioners were notified of the denial. The denial was based upon an evaluation of Petitioners' capacity for parenthood pursuant to the Department's service manual, HRS manual 175-16. The denial letter only cited Petitioners' demonstrated problem in establishing appropriate parent-child relationships with appropriate boundaries. Parenting a special needs child is more complicated and demanding than parenting a child without special needs. For the most part, special needs children come to the Department after they have been removed from or abandoned by the parents or other guardian. They often come from abusive or neglectful homes. Many special needs children have emotional and behavioral problems. The various problems a child may have differ with each child. Generally, special needs children, and probably all children, need clear and consistent boundaries with enforced structure in their daily lives. The required amount of boundaries and structure will differ from child to child. Each child's individual problems must be dealt with in a consistent manner. In fact, the Riches are very familiar with the varying problems and difficulties associated with special needs children and have dealt with each child they fostered in appropriate ways. Importantly, at no point in this review process was a specific child being considered for adoption. Because there is no specific child's needs under consideration, this case does not encompass whether a specific child would be a good adoptive match with Petitioners. Additionally because there is no specific child's needs under consideration, whether Petitioners could theoretically meet the theoretical needs of any and all special needs children is not the issue in this case. This case only encompasses whether Petitioners demonstrate the qualities expected of good parents. Ronnie Rich and his wife Pamela Rich have been married for 29 years. Mr. Rich has been employed with the Pensacola newspaper since 1982. He often works at night. Although Petitioners never ruled out the possibility that Pam Rich might become pregnant, they had discussed adoption from the very start of their relationship. They both felt there were too many kids in the world already who needed somebody. The Riches are very family oriented and participate in their church and church-sponsored activities. Ms. Rich is politically active in various social causes. They are somewhat "counter-culturish." Neither Ms. Rich's activism, nor the Riches' religious views have been pushed on any foster child in their care. Both Riches are very caring individuals. The Riches became interested in fostering because of an incident that occurred in 1983 with a young child who lived behind them. The child eventually ended up in protective placement. During the process, the Riches met with Janice Jeffcoat who performed the investigation concerning their neighbor. Later they decided to become foster parents with the intention of having the neighbor's child placed with them. For reasons not related here, the placement did not occur. Once the Riches began fostering children, they found that they had a knack with the kids they were fostering. At the time they decided to adopt a special needs child they had had a few years experience with special needs children. The Riches recognized that special needs children can be the hardest children to care for. Petitioners' first foster child was H.J, a 15-year-old female child. H.J. was known as a difficult child to place anywhere. She was particularly difficult for new and inexperienced foster parents. Petitioners describe H.J. as "a shocker." H.J. was known to say things to people just to see what kind of rise she could get from them. She would lie down in the hallway as if she were dead when someone opened the front door. She once told a dinner guest, Reverend Hawkins, that she was part of a group that sacrificed animals. H.J. had a history of violence with her step-mother and with her brother. The family had several knock-down-dragout fights, involving serious physical violence. H.J. had serious emotional and mental health problems. She often tantrumed, lost control of her behavior, injured herself, damaged property, and verbally abused others. This behavior was exhibited during her stay at the Riches. None-the-less, H.J. stayed with them for 5 months. During H.J.'s time at the Riches' home, she was seeing Chris Guy in therapy. The Riches supported and participated in that therapy. In fact, H.J. made progress in controlling herself while under the care of the Riches. Her behavior deteriorated when she learned that she was going to be placed with her uncle in Alabama. Finally she was removed from the Riches' home when one night she became uncontrollable, self-injurious, destructive, and threatening toward Ms. Rich. She ended up in the hospital, where the Riches stayed with her until three o'clock in the morning. After a short placement with another foster home, H.J. was placed with her uncle in Alabama. The Department's concerns as to H.J., were that Pam Rich had taken H.J. to hear a band at a restaurant where alcohol was served; used the term "jail bait"; allegedly encouraged H.J.'s interest in the occult; allegedly encouraged H.J. to explore her lesbian feelings; and stated a favorable opinion on the legalization of marijuana. H.J. did not testify at the hearing regarding the validity of the Department's concerns or her perception of the Riches' behavior or lifestyle. Moreover, all of these concerns were investigated by the Department with subsequent recommendations for relicensure as foster parents. During the course of her stay with the Riches, H.J. wanted to go see a band that was playing at a popular restaurant in town. Ms. Rich agreed that H.J. could go to the performance as long as Ms. Rich accompanied her. While there Ms. Rich drank one glass of wine in the presence of H.J. During a break, an older man with the band began to "hit" on H.J. in an attempt to pick her up. The man's English was not very good. In an effort to quickly terminate the man's pursuit, Ms. Rich told the man that he needed to leave because H.J. was "jail bait." She used the term to make the man understand his attention was not wanted and that he should go away. The man promptly left. Ms. Rich did not intend the term "jail bait" to be derogatory to H.J. She intended to use the term to communicate very quickly to the man in a language he could understand that serious consequences would ensue if he continued to pursue H.J. There was no evidence that H.J. found the remark offensive or derogatory. There was also no evidence that H.J. needed to be protected from an adult appropriately having a glass of wine. At some point during her stay with the Riches, H.J. elected to participate in the Riches' church and some of its church-sponsored functions. Ms. Rich and H.J. attended a chaperoned youth conference sponsored by the church in south Florida. Unknown to Ms. Rich, H.J. was "hit on" by another girl at the youth conference who allegedly was gay. Upon returning home, H.J. told Ms. Rich about the incident. Ms. Rich asked H.J. if the incident bothered her. H.J. said that it didn't. Ms. Rich told H.J. about a triangular pendant she wore that indicated that it is okay that another person is gay, but that the wearer of the pendant is not gay. The pendant is known as a PFLAG pendant. PFLAG stands for Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Afterward, H.J. on her own bought a PFLAG pendant at the Crystal Center where she took yoga classes. Additionally, at some point, H.J. asked Ms. Rich how she would react if she told her she was gay. Ms. Rich told H.J. that it would be okay. H.J. then informed Ms. Rich that she was not gay; Ms. Rich told H.J. that not being gay was okay too. Ms. Rich only had these discussions at H.J.'s prompting. Ms. Rich did not initiate H.J.'s discussions about homosexuality. She did not encourage H.J. to purchase a PFLAG pendant. On another occasion, after hearing a song by a popular group about legalizing marijuana, H.J. inquired about the Riches' position on the subject. The Riches explained that while it might be a sound policy to legalize marijuana and treat it more like alcohol, alcohol and marijuana were illegal substances for a teenager and were strictly prohibited in their family. H.J. then changed the subject and moved on to other things. There was no evidence that H.J.'s parental needs included a boundary excluding honest discussion of homosexuality or marijuana when H.J. raised such. Teenagers will raise controversial issues with the adults who are significant in the teenagers life. The Riches' responses were not inappropriate. Again these facts do not support the conclusion that either Rich demonstrated an inability to set appropriate boundaries for a special needs child. Finally, H.J. had some interest in the occult. The evidence did not show that this interest was serious, but was more of the behavior H.J. used to shock others. When H.J. came to the Riches' she brought a voodoo doll with her. She stapled it to the wall and never moved the doll from that spot. The Riches never saw her use the doll for voodoo purposes. At some point, H.J., like other teenagers, wanted a Ouija board. Mr. Rich purchased a Ouija board for H.J. He did not find it unusual to buy H.J. a Ouija board because he had had a Ouija board when he was growing up. He saw the board as a game and did not associate the board with the occult. The evidence did not show that the Riches used crystals and chanted. The evidence did not show that the Riches encouraged H.J. to use crystals and chant. The evidence did not demonstrate that any of this activity was a necessary boundary which H.J. required to be maintained. Again these facts do not establish that the Riches do not have the ability to set appropriate boundaries for children. After H.J., two sisters from Santa Rosa County were placed with Petitioners. Petitioners were told that nobody in Escambia or Santa Rosa County would take them in. The sisters had been in foster care prior to this placement and an older sister had been removed from the home permanently. The girls' father had a history of violence. The oldest of the two girls placed with Petitioners made accusations of inappropriate touching by the father. The girls had problems as to how they related to each other and discussed things. During the placement, Petitioners, who live in Escambia County, traveled with the girls to and from appointments in Milton, Okaloosa County, Florida; they also attended court hearings with them. The girls were in their care for a few months. No Department concerns were noted for this placement. The next placement to Petitioners' home was K. She came to Petitioners from Turning Point. Turning Point is a facility for young girls with serious behavioral problems. The facility's purpose is behavior modification. K. was a very difficult child. She would be happy and laughing one minute and the next, she would close down. During her stay with the Riches, K. was finishing the program at Turning Point. However, her mother was not prepared to take her back into her home. The Riches were a "gap period" placement between the time K. left Turning Point until her mother could make proper living arrangements with a place for K. During the placement, the Riches worked very closely with various therapists and case workers at Turning Point. Turning Point staff were sometimes in and out of Petitioners' home three or four times a week, visiting K. and holding therapy sessions. Staff would come once a week to see the Riches and to see if they had any problems. K. was reunited with her Mother. The Riches remain friends with K. and her mother and maintain contact with them. The Department did not have any concerns with this placement. After K., J.J. was placed with the Riches. Up to this time, Mr. Rich stated that they had had older female children. J.J. was 2 years, 10 months old upon her arrival at the Riches' home. She stayed with the Riches for 15 months and was 4 years old when she left. J.J.'s problems were not the same as those of the other foster children who had been placed with Petitioners. She had more serious behavioral and emotional problems. She soiled her pants, did not sleep through the night, and had nightmares. She came from a home with a tremendous amount of drugs, alcohol, and violence. Sexual abuse was not an issue with J.J. On one occasion, Mrs. Rich asked J.J. what she was looking for in the hallway. J.J. replied that she was looking for the blood. Later, the Riches learned that her mother had been beaten so severely by her father that there was blood in the hallway. J.J., at the age of three, was in therapy. J.J. improved at the Riches' home. While J.J. was in the Riches' home, it was normal for the Riches to rock J.J. to quiet her before bedtime. It was a period of time for her to stop from the rushing of the day and settle down before bedtime. Her bedtime was fairly early in the evening just after supper. The Department's concern as to J.J. was related to bathing. The child was not yet old enough to be left unsupervised in the bath tub. Therefore, someone had to watch her while she bathed. Most often, Ms. Rich was responsible for supervising J.J.'s bath. Occasionally, Ms. Rich would shower or bathe with J.J. Usually, she would keep an eye on J.J. while J.J. was in the bath tub. About once a month, Mr. Rich supervised the end of J.J.'s bathing. He would keep an eye on her from the hallway. The only time, Mr. Rich was called on to supervise J.J.'s bath was when Ms. Rich had to leave J.J. to begin cooking or take care of some other task which had to be done so that J.J. could get to bed on time. Nothing the Riches did regarding J.J.'s bath was unusual or abnormal. Clearly, given the age of J.J., the Riches acted responsibly in supervising J.J. in the bath. There was no evidence which demonstrated that such a bathing routine was harmful to J.J. or was an inappropriate boundary regarding her, especially since sexual abuse was not an issue with her. The Department came to the same conclusion when it relicensed the Riches as foster parents. Petitioners wanted to adopt J.J. after J.J.'s case worker expressed the possibility to them. However, the Riches were not kept informed of the Department's ongoing efforts to reunite J.J. with her parents. With these mixed signals about whether she would be staying with the Riches on a permanent basis or whether she would be reunified with her mother and father J.J. quickly reverted back to soiling her pants, not sleeping through the night, and having nightmares. J.J. was reunited with her parents. The Riches experienced considerable remorse over the loss of J.J. They felt department staff had misled them and cruelly raised their hopes about adoption of J.J. In October, 1996, after investigation of the above concerns, the Department found the Riches had a lot to offer its special needs children and recommended relicensure. The Riches were found to have used appropriate discipline; were committed to the children placed in their care; provided a warm, friendly, and caring environment to those foster children; and were extremely cooperative with the Department on fostering issues. Two foster care counselors thought they were above satisfactory in all areas of fostering. Before J.J. left the Riches' home, Delores Shelton, formerly known as D.C., was placed with the Riches. She was 16 years old. Beginning with her father, Delores had been passed around among various males in and out of her family. Once her father had left her with another man, he and her mother abandoned Delores and moved to California. At each move to another male who would take care of her, Delores was mentally, physically, and sexually abused. At age 15, she ended up with a man who was 26. They had a child together, but were not married. One day they had a fight. The Department was called to take Dolores and the infant child into custody. At that point, prior to placement with the Riches, Delores was moved from foster home to foster home. Delores was diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder. She also was diagnosed with a drug and alcohol problem. Drug and alcohol abuse is not uncommon for teenagers with post-traumatic stress disorder and Delores' behavior was out of control. Delores was a chronic runaway. The Riches knew Delores from a prior placement with another foster parent. They were aware of her problems. At the time of transfer to the Riches, Betsy Thomas, from the Department, told them that Delores may or may not stay the whole night. Significantly, Delores never ran away while in the care of the Riches. The Departments concerns as to Delores were that Mr. Rich had rocked Delores in a rocking chair with her in his lap, Petitioners placed her in a bed with them during an episode in which she threatened suicide, had attempted to interfere in her treatment, inappropriately kissed her in saying goodbye and failed to disclose Delores' whereabouts to the Department when she had run away. Delores and J.J. were very close. They referred to each other as sisters and shared a room. On one occasion, while Mrs. Rich was cooking dinner, and Mr. Rich was rocking J.J., Delores was sitting on the couch and started making comments such as "Well, I've never been rocked, my parents never rocked me. They never did that for me, but we do it every day for J.J., and sometimes rock J.J. more than once. But, you know, you all are all the time rocking her, but I've never been rocked." At that time, Petitioners didn't know quite how to respond to Delores' request to be rocked. Mr. Rich told Delores that they would talk about it at another time. The next day she mentioned it again. So in full view of Mrs. Rich, Mr. Rich rocked Delores for no more than five minutes. After that occurrence, Petitioners discussed the rocking of Delores and decided that an afghan and/or small quilt would be placed on Mr. Rich's lap between him and Delores. Petitioners discussed the rocking with Jean Lenhert, Delores' counselor. Ms. Lenhert agreed that it was the appropriate thing to do for Delores. Delores had regressed emotionally to a younger age, and she was seeking out affection from the people she viewed as her parents. The rocking of Delores occurred no more than a half a dozen times. The rocking helped Delores. It calmed her down and relaxed her. Mrs. Rich tried to rock Delores on one occasion but it was to painful for her since she suffers from arthritis and Delores weighed somewhere between 110 to 120 pounds. Under these circumstances, the Riches acted appropriately in handling a situation which had arisen. The Riches were aware that they did not want to encourage Delores to seek affection in inappropriate ways as she had done prior to becoming a foster child. Generally, maintenance of personal space and appropriate and limited demonstrations of affection are important for a child who has been sexually abused. These factors are the reason they sought guidance on the matter from Ms. Lehnert. Moreover, the Riches' judgment in this matter was correct since it did indeed help Delores through a regressive period. Given these circumstances, this incident does not demonstrate that Petitioners are unable to develop appropriate boundaries in a parent-child relationship. Ms. Lehnert testified that she noticed a change in Delores after she was placed with the Riches. Delores told Ms. Lenhert that she felt like she had a home with the Riches. Delores stayed at the Riches' home and quit running away. Although she continued to use drugs and alcohol, it was not as extreme a use as her use in the past. Delores was trying to get off the drugs and alcohol. The Riches participated in the therapy sessions when they were asked. They would ask to speak with Ms. Lehnert to let her know what Delores' behaviors had been that week. Such involvement was appropriate. In fact, Ms. Lehnert asked all parents, foster and biological to be so involved in a child's treatment. Ms. Lehnert testified that Petitioners did everything she asked of them. If they weren't sure of something, they would always call her. Ms. Lehnert testified that just being in Petitioners' house brought Delores a sense of security and a comfort level. When Delores was taken out of Petitioners' home, she ran away and reverted to her old behavior. Delores never felt threatened or that the Riches behaved inappropriately towards her. She reported that she felt safe in their home. Dolores testified that upon arriving at the Riches' home, they went over the rules with her. At first, she tried to break the rules to see what would happen. She stated that the Riches always talked to her about how they felt when she broke the rules. She said she later started following the rules because she felt comfortable at the Riches; she knew they wouldn't just kick her out because she broke a rule. Significantly, Dolores testified that until she arrived at the Riches' home, she never felt a sense of security in any home. She stated that the Riches showed that they cared. They cared about her going to counseling and getting help to get her life together. She testified that in other homes she was not cared about but just there for the money. Dolores testified that the Riches treated her like a member of their family. To this day she calls them mom and dad. She considers them her real parents because they treat her like their daughter. Delores was very withdrawn and very untrusting when she was first placed with Petitioners. After some time, she became more trusting. Soon the Riches could count on Delores to help around the house. During her placement there was one occasion when Delores was placed in the bed between Petitioners; it was Thanksgiving weekend. Petitioners, Delores, and another foster child visited Ms. Rich's parents outside Spanish Fort, Alabama. After some time there, Petitioners noticed Delores appeared to be stoned. Petitioners discovered that Delores had gotten into Ms. Rich's mother's medicine cabinet. She had found an old Valium prescription and had taken some of the pills. Delores was caught trying to break into Ms. Rich's traveling case where she kept her arthritis medication. She also had tried to get into Ms. Rich's father's medication used for his heart condition. Delores clearly needed some professional help. Petitioners did not want to take Delores to an Alabama hospital because they had learned from the MAPP class that you should always avoid getting another Department involved if necessary. Baptist Hospital in Pensacola was the closest hospital known to the Riches, so they took Delores there. Upon their arrival and assessment of Delores, the medical staff told the Riches Delores did not meet the criteria to be Baker-acted. She was sent home with the Riches. Petitioners drove home and called Les Chambers and Betsy Thomas two foster care counselors. Neither answered and the Riches left messages on their answering machines. Mr. Rich drove back to Spanish Fort to collect their things and retrieve the other foster child whom they left with Ms. Rich's sister, a special education teacher. The trip took approximately 4 1/2 hours. When he returned, the other child was put to bed. Delores was manic. She was walking in circles. Delores had told Ms. Rich that she knew how to commit suicide by slicing her wrists. She said she would show Ms. Rich how it was done, so Delores drew a streak with a pen from her wrist to her elbow. Ms. Rich stated that prior to that, Delores' suicide attempts had been scratches, laterally across her wrist. This was the first time she showed the "correct" way to slice her wrists in order to commit suicide. At some point, Delores walked into the kitchen. Ms. Rich realized that Delores was going to get a knife. Mrs. Rich ran to the kitchen and grabbed Delores' wrist as she was grabbing for a knife. Petitioners were very concerned and frightened that Delores would try to kill herself. It was 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and they were "dead on their feet." They had heard nothing from anybody, and were at a complete loss as to what they should do. The Riches feared they would fall asleep and Delores would kill herself. They were afraid that if they put her to bed in another room she would kill herself. These fears were legitimate. The decision was made that the safest place for Delores was in the bed between the Riches under the covers, with Petitioners on top of the covers. Everyone was fully dressed. Delores made it through the night. Betsy Thomas called the following afternoon and told them to tough it out. Mr. Chambers did not call until sometime the following Sunday. Eventually, Delores was admitted to the Baptist Adolescent Stress Unit at Baptist Hospital. Upon being released from the Baptist Adolescent Stress Unit, Petitioners picked Delores up. Mr. Rich picked up a birthday cake for Delores because the Riches thought she would be staying with them. Upon arriving home there was a message from Les Chambers to deliver Delores straight to FIRS. There was no reason given as to why Delores was being removed from Petitioners' home. Delores was next placed at Willow Edge's foster home. Even though Delores was no longer in the care of Petitioners, she continued to call them. She called Petitioners while at Ms. Edges' and told them she stayed up all night doing drugs with one of the other people in the home. While Delores was at Ms. Edges' home a local mall held a shopping spree for foster children on December 14, 1996. Ms. Eastlack observed Ms. Rich create a scene with Delores and her new foster mother. Ms. Rich was crying and attempting to hug and talk to Delores; Delores was ignoring Ms. Rich. Delores was angry about being placed in another foster home. Ms. Rich shook her fist in the other foster mother's face, raising her voice at the foster mother. Ms. Rich was chastising the foster mother for permitting Delores to use drugs and stay up all night at her house. Ms. Rich was upset by the reports Delores had given the Riches of her activities at her new foster home, and she was concerned for Delores. Ms. Rich eventually was encouraged to leave by someone with Ms. Rich who tugged on her arm to get her to leave. While this episode was an emotional response, one such outburst does not reflect unduly on Petitioners as potential adoptive parents. It does show how much Ms. Rich cares about the children in her life. After Ms. Edge's home, Delores was moved from several different foster placements. Eventually, she was taken to Lakeview Center and then to Meridian. Meridian is a long-term residential psychiatric care facility for children and adolescents typically between the ages of 8 to 18, to work on their behavioral and emotional problems as well as substance abuse issues. It is a voluntary, residential facility for children. Stays are typically anywhere from three months to a year. Delores, stayed at Meridian for approximately 20 days, ran away, was returned, stayed another two weeks at maximum and ran away again. During the second time Delores ran away, the Riches received a call from Delores telling them she had run away because she couldn't stand Meridian anymore. She asked that they not be mad at her. She made several telephonic contacts with Petitioners. Petitioners were very concerned for Delores' safety on the streets; they feared she would revert to her old habits of trading sex for support. They encouraged her to return to Meridian and offered to pick her up and return her to Meridian. They stressed to her to stay clean and sober. At no time, did Delores reveal her location to Petitioners. She knew if she did Petitioners would tell the Department about her location and she would be picked up. At one point, Delores was desperate for money. Mr. Rich wrote Delores a letter enclosing some money and a phone card. He mailed it to an address she had stayed at. Delores did not tell Petitioners about this location until after she had left. At the time the letter was mailed, Mr. Rich did not know where Delores was and took a chance in the hope that she would get the letter. The evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioners withheld any information on the whereabouts of Delores after she ran away from Lakeview/Meridian. They did not know where she was. Delores remained on her own for several weeks, occassionally calling the Riches. She finally agreed to turn herself in. Petitioners picked Delores up, took her to lunch, bought her some clothes, since other than what she had on, she had none. They then took her to Meridian. The Riches met with Dr. Kimberly S. Haga. Dr. Haga, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist. She was employed at Lakeview/Meridian from November 1, 1996 through January 28, 2000. Dr. Haga met with Petitioners during a two-hour meeting. Mr. Rich thought the meeting lasted only about 45 minutes. From the beginning, the meeting was hostile. Even though she did not know the Riches and the history outlined here, the meeting opened with Dr. Haga stating that the Riches had a very dysfunctional family. Although Delores was not placed with Petitioners at the time they returned her to Meridian, the Riches asked to be a part of her treatment. Petitioners knew they had formed a relationship with Delores, and believed it would be to her benefit if they participated. Moreover, Delores had requested their participation. Whether or not Delores returned to their home was unimportant; Petitioners wanted to see Delores get appropriate treatment. Dr. Haga thought Petitioners "insisted on being a part of the treatment process" and "insisted upon dictating the terms of treatment." Dr. Haga opined that such insistence by Petitioners was inappropriate. However, Delores at the time and date viewed Petitioners as her parents. Petitioners were the only foster parents who did not have problems with Delores' running away. Dr. Haga was also not privy to the numerous conversations the Riches had with Delores about staying in treatment. One statement out of context does not show the Riches acted in a manner inappropriate for a parent-child relationship or that inappropriate boundaries had been established for Delores. Additionally, the Riches did not encourage Delores to be overly dependant on them. At the end of the meeting, Dr. Haga observed Mr. Rich embrace and kiss Delores on the lips in saying goodbye. It was not a sexual kiss. Delores did not interpret the kiss as anything other than saying goodbye to her parent. Petitioners also told Delores that she was welcome at home at any time. The Riches wanted Delores to know that they cared, that she was not being abandoned, and that she was welcome in their home when her treatment was complete. In the doctor's opinion, Petitioners did not demonstrate appropriate parenting skills. These opinions are not credited given the surrounding facts of the incidences referenced. Because Delores had taken another younger child with her each time she had run away from Meridian, Delores was eventually denied admission to Meridian upon her return. After Meridian, Delores moved from foster home to foster home about every two to three weeks. Throughout she kept in touch with the Riches. Delores told Petitioners that she wanted to come home. They explained to her that they had no standing, and that she could not come back to their home until she was 18. At that time she was legally old enough to make her own decision. Petitioners received a phone call from Delores telling them that the Department was putting her on a plane to California to live with the parents who had abused and abandoned her. She was 17 years old. While in California, Delores stayed in contact with Petitioners; she quickly was back on the streets engaging in her old behaviors. When Delores turned 18, Petitioners, at Delores' request, sent her an Amtrack ticket to Crestview, Florida. Delores returned to the Riches' home. She has since married, become sober, and lives with her husband. The last child placed with the Riches was R. She was placed with the Riches before Delores left the Riches home. R. was age six when she was placed with the Riches. She was a part of a sibling group in Protective Service care. R. had been sexually abused. R's knowledge of anatomy and love was clearly inappropriate for her age. For that reason, Petitioners followed very strict rules for her that they had not really had to follow with J.J. They never bathed R. or supervised her in the tub. Petitioners worked closely with Donna Story and Chris Guy, R.'s therapists. Mr. Rich testified that R. was such a needy child that they had to have the professional guidance of Ms. Story and Ms. Guy because what R. had been through was so devastating. R. received therapy twice a week through Ms. Story, her therapist at Bridgeway. Ms. Story would come to the Riches' home once a week, and the Riches would take R. to a session once a week. The Department had no concerns regarding this placement. Petitioners gave each child entering their home their own flashlight immediately upon their arrival because they knew they were entering a strange home. They wanted the children to have a sense of security to be able to get up and find a bathroom or simply find their way around the house in the night. The first day of a child's placement, Petitioners let each child settle in, showing them their rooms and the home. As time went on, Petitioners went over the rules of the house. They sat each child down and explained what was and was not expected of them. A lot of the information for the rules came from the MAPP class Petitioners had attended; the other rules were their personal rules. Each child knew exactly what was expected of him or her, and knew what was appropriate and inappropriate behavior. The Riches maintained an open-door policy with the Department and made sure that every case worker knew that he or she was welcome at any time. Christine Guy holds a Master's degree in counseling and psychology. As indicated earlier, Ms. Guy worked with the Riches throughout the time they were foster parents. She testified in favor of adoption by Petitioners. In 1994, the first year Petitioners were foster parents, her initial opinion about Petitioners as foster parents was not favorable to Petitioners. She stated in a letter dated October 7, 1994, "I'm unable to recommend that any additional foster children be placed with the R.R.'s regardless of age, due to their need to completely assimilate and their reluctance to work toward reunification with the biological family." The letter was prepared as a comment for the relicensure of the Riches as foster parents. However, the issue of aiding in reunification is not related to whether Petitioners would make good adoptive parents. Over the years, Ms. Guy visited Petitioners' home and found it to be clean, well-maintained and appropriate. She also knew them to establish rules for their foster children. She knew some of the rules as they pertained to the children that she was seeing that lived in their home, and found them to be very appropriate. She witnessed them grow as foster parents. She feels the Riches have acquired the skills necessary to be good foster parents. As stated by Ms. Guy in her testimony, "Having somebody that cares a whole lot is really hard to look at as anything but positive." Indeed Ms. Guy feels Petitioners would make good parents and good adoptive parents of a special needs child. Jeannie Lehnert has a Master's degree in counseling and human development. She is a licensed and nationally certified counselor. She also testified in favor of adoption by Petitioners. Ms. Lehnert has been working with emotionally and mentally handicapped children since 1993. She maintains a private practice in Crestview and Fort Walton, and also teaches for the Okaloosa-Walton Community College. Ms. Lehnert has known Petitioners since late 1995. She has observed their interaction with many of their foster children. Ms. Lehnert thought the Riches were the best foster parents in the county because they took a child into their home and into their family. They took them with all their bad behaviors and all their good behaviors. Ms. Lehnert was familiar with the rules of Petitioners for their foster children. She believed them to be strict as far as a foster child following the rules. When working with the Riches, Petitioners did everything Ms. Lehnert asked of them; if she asked them to impose certain restrictions, they would. She found Petitioners to be very open-minded to treatment and care-taking suggestions. Ms. Lehnert witnessed Petitioners' affections toward their foster children. She saw them hug them, pat them on the back, tell them they did a great job, and tell them that they cared about them. She found their affections to be very appropriate. The Riches did not cause the foster children in their care to become overly dependant on them. They accepted each child unconditionally. Petitioners did not favor one child over another child. They treated the children according to their ages and gave them privileges according to their ages; exactly the behavior a good parent would do. In fact, the evidence demonstrated that the Riches' would make good adoptive parents. They have and had the skills necessary to establish appropriate boundaries in a parent-child relationship based on the needs of a particular child and had in the past established such boundaries. Whether a particular adoptive match can be found is left to the future. Petitioners' application to become adoptive parents should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioners' application to become adoptive parents be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 1st day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher P. Saxer, Esquire Christopher P. Saxer, P.A. 126 Eglin Parkway, Northeast Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548-4917 Eric D. Schurger, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Suite 601 Pensacola, Florida 32501 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
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
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Michael and Pamela Gary's licensure to provide foster care should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, the Petitioners operated a foster home in Dade City, Florida. On or about June 17, 2002, an abuse report was received that led to an investigation of the Petitioners' foster home. An allegation that the children were left unattended in a van was not supported by any evidence. During the investigation, the investigator heard of an incident during which one of the foster children housed in the Petitioners' home "pulled a knife" on one of the Petitioners' biological daughters. The evidence establishes that one of the foster children in the house was standing outside and was throwing rocks at a glass window. One of the Petitioners' biological daughters told the foster child to stop throwing the rocks. From within his clothing, the foster child pulled out a dirty knife he had apparently taken from the kitchen. Pamela Gary was present at the house but was outside at the time of the incident and apparently responded to the commotion. The child was told to drop the knife and he complied. Ms. Gary called law enforcement officers who responded to the scene. The foster child was removed from the home and committed for observation under the Baker Act. After the brief commitment, during which time the child's behavior became controlled by medication, he returned to the Petitioners' home where his behavior has improved. There is no evidence that anyone was injured during the "knife incident." During the investigation, the investigator was told that at some point, one child fell while jumping on the bed and fractured an arm. The evidence establishes that a child jumping on a toddler bed approximately 18 inches high fell from the bed and broke an arm. Neither of the Petitioners was present at the time of the accident. A caretaker who allegedly does not speak English was watching the children. The broken arm that resulted from the fall was clearly an accident. The evidence fails to establish that the child's injury was related to any abuse or neglect on the part of the Petitioners or any appropriate caretaker acting on their behalf. According to Ms. Gary, the caretaker (who allegedly speaks Spanish) communicated with children who were unable to speak English. The evidence fails to establish how the Petitioners communicate with the caretaker if, as the Respondent suggests, the caretaker speaks only Spanish and the Petitioners speak only English. There is no evidence that the Petitioners are unable to communicate with the caretaker. The Respondent asserts that the number of children housed in the Petitioners' foster home (13) exceeds the number permitted under their license. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The abuse report lists 18 children as being present in the home during the investigation. Pamela Gary testified that five of the children identified as being residents of the home were visiting on a particular day to swim in the Gary pool when the investigator came to the house. The five visiting children were not residents of the home. Ms. Gary's testimony was not contradicted and is accepted as credible. Of the remaining 13 children, six were the biological or adopted children of the Petitioners, leaving seven foster children. The number of children in a foster home can exceed the permitted number through a system of waivers from licensed capacity that considers familial relationships between children and previous foster care placements. Neither of the Respondent's witnesses credibly testified that the number of actual residents in the Petitioners' foster home exceeded their licensed capacity including waiver placements. The investigator cited the upstairs portion of the Petitioners' home as being unclean and with the odor of urine. Pamela Gary testified that the only part of the house located on the second floor were bedrooms occupied by two teenaged girls and that the girls may not have picked up their clothing. Ms. Gary testified that the odor of urine was likely related to a cat litter box that had not been cleaned that morning. Ms. Gary's testimony was not contradicted and is accepted as credible. The investigator cited the Petitioners' pool as unclean. Pamela Gary testified that the pool liner was black, and that the pool was not unclean. Ms. Gary's testimony was not contradicted and is accepted as credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the proposed revocation of the Petitioners' licensure to provide foster care. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Gary Pamela Gary 33025 Ranch Road Dade City, Florida 33523 Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 314 Largo, Florida 33778-1630 Paul 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 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Did Respondent violate Section 409.175(8)(b)1, Florida Statutes, or Rule 65C-13.011(d) and (f)1, Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, should Respondent's license as a foster home be revoked?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a foster home, having been issued such license on October 23, 1997. The Department is the agency of the state charged with the responsibility and duty to carry out and enforce the provisions of Chapter 409, Florida Statutes. Respondent received the Department's Model Approach to Partnership Parenting (MAPP) training to become a foster parent between September 1995 and December 1995. The Department provides MAPP training to teach persons how to become foster parents. The MAPP training that Respondent received included instructions concerning appropriate sleeping arrangements, namely that an adult should not sleep in the same bed with a foster child. Respondent agreed that the MAPP training was very useful and that he gained insight from that training on how to be a foster parent. Respondent received his foster care license on October 23, 1997, and the Department placed its first foster child with Respondent in January 1998. Foster child D.D., born October 23, 1985, was placed with Respondent by the Department January 20, 1998, and stayed with Respondent until March 12, 1998, when he was removed by the Department. Foster child E.T., born December 12, 1984, was placed with Respondent on January 12, 1998, and stayed with Respondent until January 21, 1998, when he was removed by the Department. E.T. was again placed by the Department with Respondent on January 23, 1998, and stayed with Respondent until March 12, 1998, when he was removed by the Department. Foster child R.M., born October 10, 1984, was placed with Respondent by the Department on March 2, 1998, and stayed with Respondent until March 9, 1998, when he was removed by the Department due to an alleged incident between R.M. and E.T. which occurred on March 9, 1998. The incident resulted in the Department's conducting an investigation concerning an alleged abuse on the foster child, E.T. by the foster child, R.M.. It appears from the record that the allegations were unfounded. In any event, R.M. was removed from Respondent's foster home on March 9, 1998, because his record indicated that in an earlier incident R.M. had sexually victimized another child (not E.T.). Also, because E.T. had been sexually victimized by another child (not R.M.) previous to being placed in Respondent's care the Department decided to remove E.T. from Respondent's home. It should be noted that the Department was aware of these prior incidents concerning R.M. and E.T. and the sleeping arrangements at Respondent's foster home at the time these foster children were placed with Respondent by the Department. Foster children, B.B. and C.L., dates of birth not in evidence, were placed with the Respondent by the Department on February 24, 1998, and stayed with Respondent until February 25, 1998, when they were removed by the Department. During the investigation concerning the alleged abuse incident involving R.M. and E.T. and at the hearing, Respondent admitted to sleeping in the same bed as E.T. and D.D. Respondent testified that on at least five occasions E.T. had slept in the same bed as Respondent. The facts surrounding this sleeping arrangement was that E.T. was suffering from an upper respiratory problem and would go to sleep on Respondent's bed before Respondent, who stayed up late reading, was ready for bed. As a result Respondent would sleep with E.T. to keep from waking him. There was no allegation, and certainly no evidence, that Respondent sexually or otherwise molested E.T. at any time. Respondent also admitted to sleeping in the same bed as D.D. on one occasion. Again, there was no allegation, and certainly no evidence, that Respondent sexually or otherwise molested D.D. At the time the Respondent applied for and was granted a foster home license and during the intervening time, the Department's personnel who worked with Respondent were well aware of the lack of sleeping spaces in Respondent's home. In fact, one of the Department's employees upon being advised of Respondent's sleeping arrangements commented that "it was better than sleeping on the floor at HRS." Upon being advised of the restriction on adults sleeping with foster children, the Respondent did not at first fully understand the risk of harm to the children. However, after being reminded of his MAPP training and the risk of harm to children in such a sleeping arrangement, Respondent realized his mistake in allowing such sleeping arrangements. Under Respondent's tutelage, E.T. and D.D. thrived academically and have continued to thrive since they left Respondent's home. The Department had some concern that Respondent's son was living in the home and that it had not been made aware of that circumstance. However, the Department knew, when Respondent's license was issued, that his son was living in the home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the mitigating circumstances, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order suspending Respondent's foster home license for a period of one year, staying the suspension and imposing such reasonable conditions as the Department deems necessary to further educate Respondent as to his responsibilities as a foster parent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Thomas D. Wilson, Esquire Law Office of Gregory Ruster 1525 South Florida Avenue Suite 3 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Gregory D. Venz. Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 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
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 May the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) revoke Respondent's foster home license for violating Section 409.175 (8)(b) 1., Florida Statutes, in that Respondent intentionally or negligently committed acts that materially affected the health and safety of children, to-wit: inadequate supervision of a minor child entrusted to her care?
Findings Of Fact R.G. is the biological mother of the infant female, A.G., born out of wedlock. R.G. gave birth to a male child before A.G. That son was taken away from R.G. by DCF. Both A.G. and R.G., while R.G. was yet a minor under the age of 18 years, were adjudicated dependent children, subject to placement by DCF, pending DNA testing of A.G. and two putative fathers. R.G. had been placed with a licensed foster home other than Respondent's licensed foster home. That home requested R.G.'s removal because R.G. would not follow its rules. R.G. with A.G., was then placed in the licensed foster care home of Respondent. Although the placement of A.G. with Respondent raised Respondent's home population to one more live foster child than Respondent's licensed capacity, a situation to which Respondent objected, DCF personnel informed Respondent that the infant A.G. would be counted as part of R.G.'s placement. Therefore, despite A.G. and R.G. being two separate persons, DCF would not consider Respondent to have exceeded her license's capacity. It was not explained on the record how DCF intended to pay board to Respondent for care of A.G., if A.G. were not considered a whole person, but it is clear that DCF personnel resented Respondent's asking how she would be compensated for A.G.'s care. At all times material, R.G. and A.G. were subject to a Circuit Court Order which permitted only "unsupervised day visitation" by R.G. with A.G. (Emphasis in the original). By implication of the Circuit Court Order, and by her own understanding from instructions by DCF personnel, Respondent knew that R.G., the minor mother, was not permitted to have unsupervised night visitation with the dependent infant, A.G. DCF's and Respondent's understanding of the Circuit Court Order was that Respondent, R.G., and A.G. were required to be in Respondent's home after dark, but Respondent was not required to "eyeball" R.G. and A.G. all night, every night, while they were present in Respondent's foster home. Gracie Rager, DCF foster care worker, authorized Respondent to allow R.G. to take A.G. out of Respondent's foster home during the day for unsupervised visitation. Ms. Rager also authorized Respondent to allow R.G. to take A.G. to R.G.'s older natural sister's home to spend some nights, including weekends. R.G.'s older natural sister was married and licensed for foster care. Accordingly, DCF personnel, including Ms. Rager, presumed that the older sister was sufficiently responsible and qualified to provide supervision of R.G. and A.G. at night. DCF reasonably concluded that R.G.'s presence with A.G. in her sister's home at night would constitute supervised night visitation and comply with the Court's Order. Ms. Rager never authorized Respondent to allow R.G. to take A.G. out at night by herself, but Ms. Rager reasonably saw no impediment, including the Circuit Court Order, to R.G. taking A.G. with her anywhere she wanted to take the baby during the day. R.G. openly resented being placed with Respondent because Respondent is Black. R.G. wanted to return, with A.G., to a white foster home placement. As a result, R.G. was never cooperative with Respondent. When R.G. turned 18 years of age, she became openly defiant of Respondent. R.G. insisted that she alone, would do everything for A.G., who was still under two years old. R.G. refused all assistance from Respondent concerning A.G. Respondent asked DCF to remove R.G. and A.G. or at least A.G., from her foster home. DCF had no other placement for them and asked Respondent to keep them until another placement was found. R.G. had a part-time day job. To get there, she would "catch a ride" with others. She would not accept a ride from Respondent. Sometimes, R.G. would take A.G. with her to work and go directly from work, with A.G., to her older, licensed sister's home. On these occasions, R.G. and A.G. might be gone for a night or a weekend. When R.G. did not return to Respondent's foster home, Respondent sometimes called R.G.'s older, licensed sister's home to be sure that R.G. and A.G. had arrived there safely. Sometimes, Respondent asked this sister to call her when R.G. and A.G. arrived. However, Respondent did not always contact R.G.'s older, licensed sister or otherwise check-up on R.G.'s and A.G.'s whereabouts overnight or over a weekend. When R.G. and A.G. returned after a night or weekend away, Respondent did not always check up on where they had been. Respondent was under the impression that a different, adult sister of R.G.'s was also a suitable adult supervisor for after dark, even though that sister was not licensed for foster care. Indeed, there is nothing in the Circuit Court Order requiring that supervised night-time visitation of R.G. with A.G. could not be undertaken by any other adult, regardless of whether that person were licensed for foster care. Respondent never checked to see if R.G. and A.G. were with R.G.'s unlicensed sister. At no time did Respondent report to law enforcement or DCF that R.G. had gone off and failed to return or that R.G. was taking A.G. away on weekends. At some point, R.G.'s authorized and licensed older sister called Ms. Rager and said R.G. had taken A.G. out all night with R.G.'s boyfriend and had not returned. It is unclear from Ms. Rager's testimony whether R.G.'s and A.G.'s departure point for their night or weekend of unsupervised visitation was Respondent's home or R.G.'s licensed sister's home. On February 9, 2001, Ms. Page, a DCF protective investigator, responded to an abuse hotline call and met with Respondent in the lobby of a DCF facility. During her interview of Respondent, Ms. Page knew nothing of where either R.G. or A.G. had been picked up, or how long they had been unsupervised at night, but Ms. Page "understood" from Ms. Rager that R.G. and A.G. had been removed from Respondent's home and that Respondent had come to the DCF facility voluntarily. Ms. Page was particularly concerned because of a comment Respondent made in the course of this interview, to the effect that Respondent guessed she had "handled it all wrong" because she had only asked to have the baby, A.G., removed from her care instead of reporting R.G.'s rebelliousness. DCF Investigator Page testified that she "verified" in an abuse report that Respondent was guilty of neglect by failure to notify authorities of R.G.'s unsupervised night visitation with A.G. There is insufficient evidence to determine of Respondent ever had a chance to challenge the abuse report or if the report was ever "confirmed." There is no evidence R.G. or A.G. suffered harm as a result of this incident.
Recommendation Upon 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 charges against Respondent and restoring her foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 7th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: David West, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Dr. James Brant, Qualified Representative 1140 Durkee Drive, North Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Cheryl Smith Post Office Box 1053 Lake City, Florida 32056 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
