The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner’s application to adopt a child.
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 1996, Petitioner filed an Adoptive Home Application. Among other things, the application discloses that Petitioner is divorced, has had two children who are now 39 and 37 years old, is retired from IBM Corporation, and has never been arrested for or convicted of a felony. The application asks: “What children would you like us to consider for your family (age, sex, siblings, handicapped, etc.)?” In response, Petitioner stated: Approximately 8-10 yrs., male, capable of learning, race not important to me. Candidates would probably be abandoned and/or neglected and/or abused. In short, a child looking for a childhood and support. The application asks: “What children would you not like us to consider for your family (age, sex, siblings, handicapped, etc.)?” In responses, Petitioner stated: I would not consider a child who has ties to undesirable relatives in or near DeSoto County. I will define undesirable for you. Petitioner also submitted a Family Profile dated March 12, 1996, as part of the application process. In the profile, Petitioner stated that he was 61 years old. He supplied four persons as references. In discussing his family relationships in the profile, Petitioner denied ever feeling disappointed, frustrated, or stressed. The question asked with whom he would share various feelings. As for happiness and sadness, Petitioner stated that he would share such feelings only with himself and that he is happy most of the time because it is sunny and hot and sad only when the weather is bad. Describing his present situation, Petitioner stated in the profile that he lives on five secluded acres in a house surrounded by woods. Asked what rules of the house can sometimes be broken, Petitioner responded that all rules are made to be broken. Asked what he would do if the child became afraid of or allergic to a pet, Petitioner, displaying a sense of humor, stated: “Bang Bang (the pet of course).” Petitioner also mentioned that his mode of transportation was a motorcycle with a sidecar. Petitioner stated that he knew only one of his neighbors, whom he visited regularly. However, Petitioner’s mother lives only a mile away, and he sees her daily. When asked whether he intended to discuss his plans to adopt with his family, Petitioner declared: “I don’t intend to discuss my plans with relatives period.” When asked how important grades and school performance would be for the child, Petitioner answered: “The child should try to do the best that is possible for him. That is all that can be expected.” Responding to a question as to the characteristics of the child to be placed in his home, Petitioner stated that he would be male, 10-16 years old, capable of learning, and the remaining characteristics would not matter. In a note dated August 29, 1996, stapled to the profile, Petitioner stated: I am looking for a child who can benefit from all my knowledge and ability so that I can look back in 10 years and know that I made possible a lifetime of happiness and success that would never have otherwise been possible for him. It is I who must be adopted by the child and once adopted I promise unconditional love. By letter dated March 9, 1996, Petitioner added more material to the profile. The letter explains in detail Petitioner’s motivation in adoption. Except for an irrelevant introduction, the letter states in its entirety: Several years ago I met a little boy at his parents [sic] place of business. His parents never spoke to him in a civilized voice and when they didn’t speak to him he was ignored. But all he was being was a little boy and all he wanted was the chance and the encouragement to experience the world about him. I never once saw him do anything malicious or destructive during any of my visits. For my own part, I spent time whenever I went to that business talking to that little boy about whatever things I could think of that might interest him. He always enjoyed helping me to carry out my purchases. And then one day when he was about 9 years old he asked m[e] if I would take him for a ride on my motorcycle. At first I passed of[f] the request with “You’ve got to have your parents’ permission and you’ve got to have a helmet.” He kept after me for several months and though I didn’t have a helmet to fit him he did have his parents’ permission. About the time of his 10th birthday I acquired the needed helmet and we began taking fun trips, sportscar races, seaquarium, fishing, etc. He was very open and conversive; I learned about his problems as well as his joys. Some of the time we spent at my home playing football, getting our fishing gear ready, and working on his reading skills with the “Hooked on Phonics” program I had acquired. I was also teaching him how to use a rifle and to use it safely. He liked being at my home and told me so; his words were, “I wished I lived here.” Secretly, I wished so too, but sadly I had to deliver him to his “home” at the end of the day. His “home was a dilapidated 10x35 trailer with windows missing. I once bought him shoes to fit, 3 full sizes larger than the ones he was wearing and I pleaded with his parents to no avail to let me take him to a dentist as he was having frequent toothaches. The last time he was at my home I had to force him to leave. The very next day I went to pick him up after school to work on “Hooked on Phonics” and he wouldn’t speak to me. His mother said that he had felt uncomfortable with me the last couple of times he was with me. I didn’t sleep well for several weeks after this experience and contemplated what to do that would be best for the boy. Unfortunately, what is best and what can be done legally do not coincide. About a year has transpired [sic] since I went through this frustrating experience and then in discussing this with a friend only recently came the realization that the ingredient that caused the frustration would be eliminated in the care of foster children and parents, my prior experience providing the incentive and enthusiasm. I feel that to become a foster parent will be a major satisfaction and accomplishment in my life. My intention is to ultimately adopt a child so that the only requirement that I have is that the child placed with me must be legally free to be adopted. I would place the choice to be or not be adopted by me entirely upon the child. Emotionally I could accept his choice either pro or con but would be unwilling to see the child removed against his will. When my own natural children were growing, I had scant time to spend with them as I worked long hours. Such is no longer the case. I now have essentially unlimited time and some fair background in caring for children. I am capable of supplementing a child’s education or if necessary supplying all of it. My teaching background bears witness to this. The most difficult thing that I foresee comes from my experience with children who have lived for any period of time with “bad” parents. In some cases learned prejudice, hate, fear, or falsehoods must be erased and replaced with positive values; in others the child’s trust has been betrayed so greatly or so often that a long period of stability and solid support will be necessary to establish a loving bond. Simultaneously, the easy part will be to establish a physical environment wherein the child can begin to develope normally. My interest and abilities are split fairly evenly between the intellectual and artisan arenas. I enjoy great literature and great music and read at least two foreign languages. I also enjoy building things, a home, furniture, or a model; presently I am restoring a motorcycle. I also enjoy travelling and camping during the summer months. About a year ago I discovered what a joy it is to befriend a child, especially one who is desperately in need of help. I also discovered that I am in extremely good physical condition and though I can’t outrun a 10 year old, I won’t quit and won’[t] drop dead trying. I feel I am ready to continue what I tried to do a year [ago], this time without outside interference. On June 3, 1996, Petitioner completed the 30-hour class on Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting. On August 29, 1996, Respondent’s adoption counselor, Ted Hanleck, met Petitioner at his home as part of a home study. Mr. Hanleck completed the home study and prepared an Adoptive Home Study report dated January 22, 1997. The report notes the home visit on August 29 and four office visits in August, October, November, and December, 1996. The Adoptive Home Study states, among other things, that Petitioner wants no contact between the birth parents and the child, but would consider contact between the child and his siblings or grandparents. Also, Petitioner would consider a child with a mild-to-moderate physical handicap and a manageable behavior problem. The report accurately states that Petitioner would take a boy of any race from 8 to 10 years old. The Adoptive Home Study notes that Petitioner’s mother is 91 years old. The report describes Petitioner’s house as solar powered and without air conditioning and a telephone, although Petitioner said he would purchase a mobile phone. The Adoptive Home Study reviews Petitioner’s childhood: his education, which includes a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree that Petitioner earned at Syracuse University; his 22-year career with IBM; his employment as an instructor at Cornell University, Marist College, IBM, and G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital; and the dissolution of his 35-year marriage in 1992 following a seven- year separation. The Adoptive Home Study discloses that Petitioner receives annual retirement income of about $15,000 from IBM and has no debts. Petitioner promises to place any payments attributable to his adopting a child into a trust fund for the child’s college education. Petitioner lacks life and health insurance coverage. The Adoptive Home Study mentions that Petitioner’s adult daughter writes her father every month, but that he has not responded to any of her letters for several years. Petitioner’s adult son described his relationship with his father as distant. Both children stated that they would not leave their children, if they had any, with Petitioner. Petitioner explained that the children had sided with their mother following the divorce. The Adoptive Home Study reviews the references by noting that local and state law enforcement revealed no reports or charges against Petitioner. Two of the three persons listed as references, who were not relatives, were noncommittal regarding the placement of a member of their family in Petitioner’s home for care. All persons giving recommendations said that Petitioner was “conscientious, a perfectionist, strong-willed, has a sense of humor, was confident and likable.” However, it was evident that the persons providing the recommendations did not know Petitioner well. The Adoptive Home Study concludes by noting several concerns. First, Petitioner lives by himself and is self- sufficient except for one neighbor who has offered to provide transportation when needed. Second, Petitioner appears emotionally self- sufficient with a history of disassociating himself from individuals who do not accept his opinions and lifestyle, including his own children. This raises concerns as to how [Petitioner] would react to a child who, two or three years after adoption[,] developed different interests and opinions from [Petitioner’s] own. Third, Petitioner may not be willing to “help a child discover or maintain awareness of his personal history.” The report notes: “[Petitioner] has strong opinions concerning birth parents and contact with extended relatives.” The report adds: Petitioner has clearly stated that he wants to adopt a child that can learn and that has the potential to go to college. It is uncertain how [Petitioner] would respond to an adopted child that, several years after adoption, decided to drop out of school or that did not put forth effort towards academic achievement. Fourth, Petitioner would not be willing to adopt a child with certain special needs. The report states that Petitioner would take a child over eight years of age or of a minority race, but would not adopt a child with a mental, emotional, or physical learning disability or serious physical handicap. Also, Petitioner would not consider a child who had an interest in religion that needed to be continued. The Adoptive Home Study finds that these concerns and the potential for a failed adoption “seem to outweigh the strengths [Petitioner] has as an adoptive applicant. Therefore, we do not recommend that [Petitioner] be approved as an adoptive candidate.” Due to the recommendation of the Adoptive Home Study, the Adoptive Applicants Review Committee met on February 24, 1997, to review Petitioner’s application. The committee report notes that the Adoptive Home Study had found positives in Petitioner’s financial security, good health, time to devote to a child, and clear screenings as to an abuse or criminal record. The committee report acknowledges that the concerns identified by the Adoptive Home Study were Petitioner’s lack of an adequate support system; tendency to dissociate himself from those, such as his children, who do not accept his opinion; attitude toward birth families; expectations of the child and likelihood of rejecting the child if he does not live up to Petitioner’s expectations; and limited array of acceptable special needs-- namely, any race and an age of 8-12 years. The committee undertook considerable effort to develop all relevant information underlying Petitioner’s application. Each committee member decided to deny the application. The chair of the committee explained: I believe that the purpose of the Department’s adoption program is to meet the needs of the children committed to the Department and needing permanent nurturing homes. It is to be hoped that these placements will also meet the needs of families wishing to adopt. However[,] the focus of the program must always be on the needs of the child with the families as resources. Regardless of [Petitioner’s] desire to parent a child, I do not believe that he can meet the wide range of needs for the children who are waiting to be adopted. During the course of these proceedings [Petitioner] has interacted with at least nine Department employees, most of whom have many years of experience working with foster and adoptive children. Not one of them recommended him as an adoptive parent. Those people who might be presumed to have had the closest relationships with him, his own children and former wife[,] are unanimous in their feelings that he should not adopt. For these reasons[,] as well as those cited by the committee members, I concur with their recommendation. On March 31, 1997, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application to adopt was denied for several reasons. First, Petitioner’s expectations of a child were unrealistic, and Petitioner was not sufficiently flexible to meet the child’s needs if he failed to live up to Petitioner’s expectations. Second, Petitioner would undermine the placement by refusing to accept the child’s birth connections if they are unacceptable to Petitioner. Third, Petitioner’s support system lacks a viable plan for the care of the child if Petitioner could not raise the child to adulthood and lacks any significant female influence. Fourth, Petitioner displays insufficient commitment in his unwillingness to maintain relationships with persons, such as his children, whose interests and choices differ from Petitioner’s. Fifth, Petitioner is unwilling to work cooperatively with others, such as Respondent’s counselors and school personnel, to deal with the special needs of the most of the children placed by Respondent. Petitioner’s daughter, who is a divorced schoolteacher, testified that she was around 30 years old when her parents divorced, so it is unlikely that the children sided with the mother, as Petitioner asserts. Petitioner’s daughter testified that Petitioner was a good provider when she was a child and never abused the children, but never seemed interested in children when she and her brother were young. Although always stressing the importance of an education, Petitioner never paid for either child’s college expenses. Petitioner’s daughter writes her father, but he has not responded in several years. According to both of them, she would write about personal things and he would write about ideas, and he decided that he did not want to continue the correspondence because it did not interest him. Petitioner testified that he had no interest in children just five years ago, and then he met the boy described at length in his letter. In this brief relationship, Petitioner discovered a wealth of emotion, and this experience sparked Petitioner’s interest in adoption. He then initiated the adoption process that resulted in this case. Petitioner is highly individualistic and self- reliant. He rightly protested the periodic appearance, in the adoption review process, of numerous irrelevant items, such as references to his mode of transportation--motorcycles--and his professed atheism, the latter of which is relevant only to the placement of an older child who has already developed religious interests. The question is what kind of parent Petitioner would make. Petitioner could meet a child’s physical and financial needs, although the absence of medical insurance is a problem. The real questions in this case are whether Petitioner could meet the emotional and social needs of a child. The adoption application asks the applicant to explore his emotions. Petitioner did not give these questions much thought, as judged his cursory, even flippant, answers. His happiness or sadness is driven by the weather, and he denies having a wide range of other normal feelings and, thus, the need to deal with such feelings. Petitioner does not appear to be extended much emotionally or socially, except with his aged mother. He clearly has been unable to accept his daughter on her own terms. Likely, this has been a problem with his relationship with his son. Petitioner’s intense emotional bond with the neighborhood boy was accompanied by the enrichment of the boy’s life culturally, intellectually, and practically. It appears likely that Petitioner would follow the same pattern with an adoptee. In these relationships, the potential for frustration is high. Petitioner has little experience in feeling and dealing with his feelings, and his emotional naiveté ill-prepares him for handling the emotional ups and downs of the typical or, even more so, troubled adolescent boy. The likely price of Petitioner’s frustration is alienation and estrangement, which are serious injuries for the older adoptee, who has already experienced more than his share of these pains in his young life. Petitioner’s narrow self-focus would hamper his ability to help a child develop socially too. Petitioner is intolerant of the inadequacies of the bureaucracies with which he was forced to work in his relationship with the boy and his attempt to adopt a child. He is intolerant of the inadequacies of existing family members. Doubtlessly, all organizations and family members exhibit inadequacies, and learning to deal constructively with such organizations and persons may no longer be required of Petitioner, but will be required of any child he would adopt.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application to adopt a child. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: B. M. G. Post Office Box 3298 Arcadia, Florida 34265-3298 Eugenie G. Rehak District Legal Counsel Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906-0085 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 Whether Petitioners should be licensed as a family foster home.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are an Hispanic couple in their late fifties. At the time of application, B.A. (13 years old), and his sister S.A. (15 years old), lived with the Marriagas. Both were being raised by the Petitioners. At the time of hearing B.A. was living with the Petitioners. On August 25, 1999, Petitioners submitted their application/packet for licensure as a family foster home. Other than those raised at this hearing, Petitioners meet all requirements for becoming a foster home. They have completed the MAPP qualifications. They also understand and are able to handle problems peculiar to caring for foster children. They understand the obligations and responsibilities of foster parents. Indeed, Ms. Marriaga is not employed and is able to devote her time and attention to any children in her home. By statute, the Department is required to interview at least two neighbors of an applicant for foster care. In conducting the required interviews for the Marriaga application, a Department licensing counselor was informed that there were concerns among some of the neighbors interviewed about how the Marriagas cared for and/or supervised their 13-year-old grandson, B.A. Neighbors reported to Mr. Lewis that B.A. appeared at times to be unsupervised and locked out of the Marriagas' home. Neighbors also indicated that B.A. complained of being hungry. Other neighbors reported that the Marriagas were good parents and would make good foster parents. None of the neighbors testified at the hearing. No reliable evidence was submitted on the basis of these neighbors' assertions. Ms. Marriaga admitted that there were a few occasions when she would be out shopping for a short period when B.A. got home from school. These short periods were for no more than 5 or 10 minutes and were not frequent. She also stated that there was one occasion where B.A. was left unsupervised after school because Ms. Marriaga had to take her adult daughter to the hospital for emergency treatment for gangrene. She said she returned from the hospital within 30 minutes after B.A. got home. None of these absences were unreasonable, given B.A.'s age and level of responsibility. Neither incident supports a finding that the Marriagas are not qualified. B.A. did not have a key to the home to gain access on the occasions when Ms. Marriaga was not home when he got back from school. He could access the garage area and the backyard, but not the living areas of the home. The garage area was stocked with food and drinks. The fact B.A. does not have a key is not an unusual or unreasonable child-rearing practice. The lack of key does not support a finding that the Marriagas are not qualified especially since the Marriagas understand that foster child access requirements of the Department. Because of the concerns raised by the neighbors' reports, Mr. Lewis interviewed B.A. and his sister, re-contacted the neighbors to whom he had talked previously and interviewed two more neighbors in late October 1999. Some neighbors still had concerns about B.A.'s supervision, others did not. None of the neighbors testified at the hearing nor were sufficient facts introduced to conclude that these neighbors had any substantive basis for their opinion. The Licensing Evaluation submitted by John Lewis to the Family Services Counselor Supervisor recommended that the Marriaga's home be licensed for two children: Male or female, infant zero through eight years. This recommendation was submitted after Mr. Lewis went to the Petitioners' home to finalize the family profile report. At that time, Mr. Lewis the advised Petitioners that two of the four neighbors interviewed expressed reservations about the level of supervision a foster child would receive in their home. The Petitioners assured Mr. Lewis that their grandson B.A. is strictly supervised and well cared for. At hearing, B.A. concurred with his grandparents. Mr. Lewis did not ask the Petitioners for the name of an emergency back-up person or to provide him with an emergency care plan. The Petitioners have a strong family support group. At the hearing Ms. Marriaga stated that her plan was to either be present or a relative would provide the needed back-up supervision. The Marriagas believed handling such a scenario would not be difficult because Ms. Marriaga was always available to be home. They stated at the hearing that in the event of an emergency the great-grandfather would care for B.A. or the foster children. The Petitioners do have an adequate emergency care plan for their grandson and the foster children. Mr. Lewis informed Mr. Marriage by telephone in early December 1999, that their home would not be licensed. However, on March 15, 2000, Petitioner wrote a letter to the Department requesting action on their application. Formal, written notification of denial was provided on March 29, 2000.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioners' application be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2000, 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 12th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos A. Marriaga Evangelista Marriaga 4514 Southeast 10th Place Ocala, Florida 34471 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondents' family foster home license should be revoked for the reasons set forth in the March 24, 1999, letter that Respondents received from the Department of Children and Family Services (Department).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondents are husband and wife. They live in a comfortable home in a "very nice neighborhood" located in the Country Club of Miami area in Miami-Dade County and are well respected members of their community. Mr. Roberts, who, like his wife, is college educated, worked as a teacher, administrator, and coach in the Miami-Dade County public school system. He retired in 1992 after 32 years of exemplary service. The Roberts have four natural children (all of whom are adults and live outside of their home) and 12 grandchildren. Approximately four years after Mr. Roberts' retirement, he and his wife decided that they wanted to become family foster parents. Their decision was motivated, not by monetary considerations, but by a desire to help children who needed foster care. The Roberts subsequently applied for, and were granted, a license to operate a family foster home at their residence. Following the issuance of this license, foster children C. P., her sister L. P., T. R., and her sister S. R. were placed in the Roberts' home. The Roberts were loving and caring family foster parents who treated their foster children like they were their own children or grandchildren, and provided them with a reasonably safe and nurturing environment. When the foster children in the Roberts' home misbehaved, they were disciplined. On occasion, when she believed circumstances warranted, Mrs. Roberts disciplined the children (just as she would her own grandchildren under similar circumstances) by hitting them on their hand with a wooden switch. There was no intention on her part to physically harm or injure the children, nor is there any persuasive evidence that she inflicted any such harm or injury. Mrs. Roberts merely wanted to get the children's attention and make them realize that what they did was wrong and must not be repeated. Notwithstanding her good intentions, Mrs. Roberts acted in a manner that was contrary to the Department's written policy (of which she was aware and with which she had agreed to comply) prohibiting family foster parents from using corporal punishment to discipline the foster children in their family foster home. Being hit on the hand with a wooden switch by Mrs. Roberts was the only corporal punishment to which C. P., L. P., T. R., and S. R. were subjected while in the Roberts' care. At no time did Mrs. Roberts "punch [C. P.] in [the] arm, scratch[] her on [the] neck, [or] push[] her head into [the] wall," as was reported on the Department's abuse hotline on October 15, 1998. Victor Onweazuekwu, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned the task of investigating this report of alleged abuse (which was reduced to writing by the Department employee who received the report). He began his investigation by visiting the Roberts' home at approximately 9:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 18, 1999, three days after the report was made. Jodi Forbes, C. P.'s and L. P.'s adoption counselor, joined Mr. Onweazuekwu later that evening during his visit to the home. After introducing himself to the Roberts and explaining the purpose of his visit, Mr. Onweazuekwu asked, and was permitted, to speak with C. P. and her sister L. P. Following his interview of the girls, Mr. Onweazuekwu "read [to the Roberts] the allegations" that had been made against Mrs. Roberts. He then asked Mrs. Roberts if these allegations were true. Mrs. Roberts candidly admitted that she had disciplined the foster children in her home by hitting them on the palm of their hands with a "switch that f[ell] from [one of] the trees in [the Roberts'] back yard," but she (truthfully) denied punching or scratching C. P. or pushing C. P.'s head against the wall. The Roberts were upset that Mrs. Roberts had been falsely accused of having engaged in such abusive conduct, and they were understandably concerned that, if C. P. (who they reasonably believed to be deceitful and manipulative) and her sister L. P. (who they viewed as being easily influenced by C. P.) remained in their home, they [the Roberts] might be subjected to additional false accusations by the girls, perhaps even more serious than those that had already been made against Mrs. Roberts. Therefore, despite the pleas of Mr. Onweazuekwu and Ms. Forbes that C. P. and L. P. be allowed to remain in the Roberts' home overnight, the Roberts insisted that the two girls be removed that evening. When Ms. Forbes left the Roberts home that evening, she took C. P. and L. P. with her and subsequently placed them in another family foster home. The girls departed the Roberts' home with only the clothes that they were wearing that evening. The following day, Ms. Forbes telephoned Mrs. Roberts and made arrangements to pick up the remainder of the girls' belongings. Later that day, Ms. Forbes paid a visit to the Roberts' home and asked Mrs. Roberts for the girls' clothes. Mrs. Roberts initially declined, stating that she thought that Ms. Forbes would be picking up the clothes the following day. Ms. Forbes then asked Mrs. Roberts for at least "one outfit so that [Ms. Forbes] could send the girls to school the next day." Mrs. Roberts responded to this request by giving Ms. Forbes "most of [the girls'] clothes." Two days later, C. P. and her new family foster parent came to the Roberts' home and picked up the rest of C. P.'s and L. P.'s belongings. Mr. Onweazuekwu, following his visit to the Roberts' home on October 18, 1998, requested the University of Miami, School of Medicine's Child Protection Team (CPT) to conduct psychological evaluations of C. P., L. P., T. R., and S. R. The CPT conducted these psychological evaluations as requested and, on or about January 14, 1999, submitted a report to Mr. Onweazuekwu detailing the findings that were made. The report contained the following recommendation: CPT believes that DCF [the Department] should revoke the Roberts' foster parents license since they are clearly using not only corporal punishment with instruments to discipline children placed in their care, but also fear and intimidation to control the children. Alternative placements should be immediately sought for [T. R.] and [S. R.]. Thereafter, the Department removed T. R. and S. R. from the Roberts' home and, subsequently, initiated proceedings to revoke the Roberts' family foster home license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order revoking Respondents' family foster care license pursuant Section 409.175(8)(b)2, Florida Statutes, based on Mrs. Roberts' use of corporal punishment in violation of Rule 65C-13.010(1)(a)5f, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1999 COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemarie Rinaldi, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue, N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Cleveland and Harolean Roberts 1540 Northwest 203rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Samuel C. Chavers, Acting Agency Clerk Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether HRS should grant the Petitioner's application a license to operate a foster care home for dependent children.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Christopher Murphy, is a single male, born July 27, 1966. He wants to be a foster care parent for up to two teenagers, same sex, including those with a history of having been abused. In approximately September, 1994, the Petitioner approached the Children's Home Society (CHS), located in Orlando, Florida, to inquire about applying for licensure to operate a foster care home for dependent children. CHS is and was under contract with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to screen prospective licensees. The screening process included, among other things: interviews with the Petitioner; a home study; review of written personal references on behalf of the Petitioner; evaluation of the Petitioner's participation in the HRS-approved Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting (MAPP) program. After conducting its training and screening of the Petitioner, CHS recommended the Petitioner for licensure "for two children, same gender, ages 12 to 18 years," and the Petitioner filed his application for licensure on or about May 3, 1995. The Petitioner and the "relief persons" he designated in his application underwent background screening, and no disqualifying information was found. However, by letter dated July 11, 1995, HRS gave notice of intent to deny the Petitioner's application for the following reasons: According to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10M-6, it is the opinion of the Department that based on your own experience with depression, your single lifestyle and your sexual orientation that your desire to be a foster parent is not in the best inte- rest of the children in the custody of Health and Rehabilitative Services. You have indicated that you have doubts about your ability to work with HRS in seeking rehabilitation of the families with children in foster care, that you have limited patience with bureaucracy, and that you would not like to see the foster children in your care return to their parents. Professional counseling to relieve distress over your sexual orientation did not resolve that issue. These consider- ations lead HRS to believe that it would not be in the best interest of children in state custody to be placed with you in foster care. The Petitioner's Mental and Emotional Status The evidence is that the Petitioner experienced some difficulties growing up as one of ten siblings. His mother was very religious but, at the same time, appears to have been a strict disciplinarian and, at times, almost "cruel" to the children. In addition, the Petitioner tended to be a loner during his early years. He was physically weak and was susceptible to being bullied by other children. In addition, he played differently from other boys his age, preferring to spend his time reading Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters rather than playing with friends. As the Petitioner grew older, he increasingly recognized signs that he was homosexually oriented. These signs disturbed him because a homosexual orientation was contrary to his desires and to what he understood to be the morals of his family and religion. When the Petitioner went to college in the mid-1980's, he still would have been considered a "social isolate," and the combination of stresses from leaving home, living on his own at college and dealing with his sexual orientation resulted in depression requiring individual psychotherapy and medication (at first Impramine and later, in 1992, Prozac). Dealing with his mother's death in 1988 caused the depression to recur, but the Petitioner was able to recover with the help of the psychotherapy and medication. Since 1988, the Petitioner has suffered periodic bouts of mild depression. (Medication he takes for rapid heartbeat tends to cause some depression as a side effect.) However, the Petitioner's major depression is in remission, and he has been able to control the mild depression by the appropriate use of medication. The Petitioner's physicians advise him to continue on medication and seek therapy as necessary. In recent years, the Petitioner has resolved his conflicted feelings about his mother, as well as many of the conflicts he had with members of his family. The Petitioner also has made great strides to resolve his conflicted feelings about his sexual orientation. At the same time, he still rejects the values and lifestyle of the gay world and continues to accept most of the basic tenets of traditional values and lifestyle. As a result, there is no indication that the Petitioner is trying to use the foster parent program in order to make a political statement about gay rights. However, the difficulty the Petitioner will continue to face is that traditional society does not necessarily always accept him. This probably will make being a foster parent more difficult for the Petitioner. The Petitioner also has made considerable progress making and maintaining viable personal relationships. He has been able to work responsibly and well in the positions he has held with Universal Studios in Orlando and has made and maintained several positive and valuable friendships through work and elsewhere. In the words of a licensed psychologist who evaluated him in August- September, 1995, the Petitioner is "on the mend" in this regard; by this he meant that the Petitioner is making good progress in the right direction. If major depression were to recur, the Petitioner obviously would have difficulty persevering, and probably would be unable to persevere, in seeing a foster child through to the end of his or her temporary placement. But in recent years the Petitioner has been able to control depression by appropriately using his antidepressant medication, monitoring himself for symptoms of depression, and seeking appropriate therapy as needed. As long as he continues to do so, it is not anticipated that major depression will recur. HRS has licensed others with mental and emotional status similar to the Petitioner to be foster parents. It is true that there is a possibility that the stress of being a foster parent could cause the Petitioner's depression to recur. In many ways, teenage is the most difficult age bracket for foster care, and abused teenagers can present even greater difficulties. But HRS maintains control over the children to be placed with the Petitioner, and an effort could be made not to place the most difficult foster care challenges with the Petitioner, at least initially. In addition, HRS and the Petitioner could cooperate in monitoring the effects that the stress of being a foster parent have on the Petitioner. There is a good chance that the Petitioner's depression will not recur as a result of being a foster parent. The Petitioner's Parenting Experience The Petitioner has no children of his own and has no parenting experience. He grew up in a family of ten children but tended to spend much of his time apart from them. The Petitioner did some baby-sitting during his teens. But otherwise, through his college years, the Petitioner did not exhibit much inclination or desire to be around or work with children. The Petitioner changed as he reached adulthood. He now has a very strong desire to help teenage children by acting as their foster parent. In recent years, he has had the opportunity to work with families having their pictures made at the Universal Studios park in Orlando and has found that he had success interacting with the young members of those families. While he has not had much experience taking care of teenagers, he also has enjoyed spending considerable time in recent years interacting with the young children of friends and other family members. (Living in the a vacation center, many siblings and other members of his family have taken advantage of the opportunity to visit him since he moved to Orlando.) The Petitioner seems to interact well with the children in several arenas--facilitating play, sharing snacks and meals, helping with homework, going on picnics and other outings, suggesting and participating in other positive family activities. His friends' children like him, and his friends trust him with tending to their children. On the other hand, the Petitioner's experience taking care of children is limited. The Petitioner's experience as the sole caretaker responsible for children is relatively sparse and of relatively short duration. While the Petitioner has done some baby-sitting for family and friends, most of the time he has spent with children has been while their parents were around. The Petitioner has not had occasion to be responsible for children overnight or for extended periods of time (certainly not for 24 or more hours). He also has not had much other experience working with children in other settings. He has not, e.g., worked or volunteered as a counselor for church or civic youth groups or camps. Due to the nature of the Petitioner's experience with children, and his lack of experience with teenagers, it is not certain that the Petitioner will succeed as a foster parent of teenagers, or children of any age. It also is not certain that the Petitioner himself will thrive as and enjoy being a 24- hour a day foster parent. It would be desirable both for the Petitioner and for the children to be placed with him for the Petitioner to get more experience before beginning to act as a foster parent. But, on the other hand, the same probably could be said for most first-time parents. It is hard to truly know what it is like to be a parent until you become one. HRS has no non-rule policy establishing clear minimum experience standards for licensure as a foster parent. HRS has licensed others to be foster parents with as little or less parenting experience compared to the Petitioner. The licensing administrator who testified for HRS stated that HRS never has issued a provisional license to a first-time applicant and that HRS would not issue one for the purpose of evaluating the provisional licensee while the licensee gains additional parenting experience. The Petitioner's Ability to Be a "Team Player" On the "Strengths/Needs Work Sheet" for various sessions of the Petitioner's MAPP training, the Petitioner wrote: (Needs as a Result of Meeting 2) I am intolerant of those who hurt children and may have a difficult time holding back and/or editing my language in their company (during visits). I have limited patience with bureaucracy. If something is not getting done, I will do it myself regardless of who gets offended. (Needs as a Result of Meeting 5) I probably will assume I am a better parent than the child's birth parents, and I don't think I'll want the child to return to his biological family. As CHS conducts MAPP training, prospective foster parents are encouraged to use the "Strengths/Needs Work Sheet" to honestly express their deepest concerns about their ability to succeed as foster parents. Then, the trainers help the trainees deal with those concerns. CHS' MAPP trainers believed that, during the course of the training sessions, the Petitioner was able to work through his concerns and grow through the training process. He was open to the trainers' ideas and actively participated in the sessions. In their estimation, the Petitioner's comments, even when in the fifth session, should not be taken as an indication that the Petitioner would not be able to work in partnership with HRS and birth families as a team player. The licensing administrator who testified for HRS was not familiar with how CHS conducted MAPP training and was not in a position to conclude, as she did, that the Petitioner's statements on the "Strengths/Needs Work Sheet," in and of themselves, show that the Petitioner will not be able to work in partnership with HRS and birth families as a team player. The Petitioner has had no difficulty working within the bureaucracy at Universal Studios. He has had good relationships with his supervisors and has had no difficulty accepting their authority over him. Nothing about his employment experience would indicate that the Petitioner would have difficulty working in partnership with HRS and birth families as a team player. The Petitioner's Single Life Style On the "Strengths/Needs Work Sheet" for various sessions of the Petitioner's MAPP training, the Petitioner wrote: (Needs as a Result of Meeting 2) I am responsible, but do not lead a structured life. I eat when I'm hungry, sleep when I'm tired, have ice cream for breakfast . . . (Needs as a Result of Meeting 3) I may not be able to go out all night and do things as spontaneously as I do. (Needs as a Result of Meeting 5) It's just me - one on one. If I had a spouse to back me up when making rules or administer- ing discipline, things would be easier. On the other hand, the Petitioner also counted among his strengths: (Needs as a Result of Meeting 3) It's just me. . . . A foster child has only one person to adjust to. (Needs as a Result of Meeting 4) I have no other people living in my home and can devote a majority of my free time to my foster child. (Needs as a Result of Meeting 5) As a single male with no children, I will be the only one affected. These comments indicate an awareness on the Petitioner's part that his life will change if one or two foster children are placed in his home. As he recognizes, being single will make it more difficult in some ways, but somewhat easier in other ways. What can make being a single foster parent most difficult is not having the emotional and intellectual support and help of another adult in the home. A single foster parent must attempt to compensate by having adult family and friends who are willing and able to serve some of those needs. Several of the Petitioner's friends are willing and able to serve in this role for the Petitioner. All have met HRS's screening requirements. One thing a single foster parent cannot replace is the inability to demonstrate (and teach through) a successful marriage. But this inability clearly is not disqualifying. The Petitioner's Sexual Orientation HRS's notice of intent to deny the Petitioner's application mentioned the Petitioner's sexual orientation. But at final hearing HRS took the position that sexual orientation itself was not a ground for denial of the Petitioner's application. While not disqualifying in itself, being a homosexual foster parent undeniably will present special problems. First, it already has been mentioned that it can be a challenge for a homosexual to function in traditional society, and trying to function as a foster parent in traditional society surely will present its own special challenges. Along those lines, it is foreseeable, e.g., that a foster parent's homosexuality could be unacceptable to the birth family. In addition, since unmarried cohabitation by two or more adults is disqualifying, the Petitioner would be restricted to living alone. Lastly, many foster parents later adopt children placed with them, but the Petitioner will not be able to because homosexuality is disqualifying for purposes of adoption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order issuing the Petitioner a license to operate a foster home for up to two children, same sex, ages 12 to 18 years of age. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 27th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4150 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Rejected that he applied for a license then; he initiated the screening process and preservice training at that time. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 2.-4. Accepted and incorporated. 5.-8. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 9. The characterization "extensive" is rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 10.-12. Accepted and incorporated. 13. The date "July 11, 1996" is rejected as contrary to the evidence. (It was 1995.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 14.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 17. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 18.-22. Conclusions of law. Accepted and incorporated. Conclusion of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated. 4.-6. Conclusions of law. 7.-9. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The first testimony referred to Noll's knowledge of whether the Petitioner was on medication at the time of the hearing. Noll was not "pressed" for the additional testimony; he was just asked a different question.) Rejected as contrary to the evidence that Noll "failed to follow through." Also, subordinate and unnecessary, as the question for determination is whether the evidence at final hearing supported licensure. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Again, the question for determination is whether the evidence at final hearing supported licensure.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that he did not present any experience in his application; he presented more at final hearing after being informed that HRS included experience in the "single lifestyle" ground for the July 11, 1995, notice of intent to deny. Again, the question for determination is whether the evidence at final hearing supported licensure. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; he presented more at final hearing. See 13., above. 15.-16. Generally, accepted. The Petitioner's exact statements are incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Petitioner's purpose was to "avoid working with birth families." (The gist of Noll's discussion with the Petitioner appears to have been that foster parenting older children generally makes reunification less of a concern; either reunification would not be a viable option or, if considered, the older child would have more say in the matter. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but, as previously ruled, subordinate to the ultimate issue for determination, and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ann E. Colby, Esquire 305 Elkhorn Court Winter Park, Florida 32792 Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory D. Venz Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Respondent) should issue a license to operate a foster home to Mr. & Mrs. Steven Price (Petitioners).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 19, 1989, the Petitioners applied to the Respondent for a foster home license, and on or about July 12, 1989, the Respondent denied their application for licensure. The Petitioners timely sought this hearing to determine if their application for a foster home license should be approved. After investigation and review of their application, the Respondent informed the Petitioners, by letter dated July 12, 1989, that their application was denied due to insufficient income, harassment of a prior ward, the exercise of poor judgement involving their prior ward in misrepresenting to that child that her grandmother had died as an inducement for her to return home, and the fact that their ward had become pregnant by their son while living in their home. At hearing, the Petitioners admitted that their previous ward had become pregnant by their son while living with them, and while under their care and custody. They also admitted that they had exercised poor judgement by telling that child that her grandmother had died as an inducement for her to return home after she had run away. They also essentially admitted that they had continually and persistently attempted to contact the ward through foster parents with whom she had been placed after she ran away from the Petitioners' home, and through others with whom they believed she was living. Their efforts were unrelenting and desperate, and eventually culminated in the misrepresentation about the death of the ward's grandmother, with whom she had been particularly close. From their testimony at hearing, it is evident that Petitioners harassed the foster parents with whom their prior ward had been placed in their unrelenting efforts to return her to their home. The only factor identified by the Respondent in its denial of the Petitioners' application which was actively contested at hearing was Petitioners' apparent lack of sufficient income. In their application, the Petitioners indicated that their monthly income was $1,169 and at hearing they testified that this amount had increased to $1,272. No corroborating evidence was introduced for either amount. Petitioners have four children, ages 14 to 17, living at home with them. Thus, their stated income must support a total of six persons. They estimated their monthly expenses to be $851, including $562 for a home mortgage and $289 for utilities. No corroborating evidence was introduced to support this estimate of their expenses. However, using their estimate of expenses and their revised statement of income, the Petitioners are claiming to have only $421 each month in excess income for food, medical bills, clothing, and other expenses for six persons. They are also receiving food stamps valued at $180 per month. Thus, their excess income plus food stamps equals $601 per month to provide food, medical care and clothing for six persons. Petitioners offered no credible explanation of how they could provide food, clothing and medical care for six persons on $601 per month. They were repeatedly asked to clarify how they were able to meet the essential needs of their children, as well as themselves, on this amount, but would only state that they have learned how to get by and manage on their limited income. While it may be possible to feed, clothe, and provide medical care to four teenagers and two adults for an average of $100 per month, it is not likely, and without corroborating evidence of the methods and means whereby Petitioners have accomplished this, their unsupported assertions lack credibility when weighed against practical realities and common sense.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioners' application for a foster home license be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 89-5285) Petitioners did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 2, 4 and 5. 3-5. Adopted in Finding 3. 5-7. Rejected since these are conclusions of law rather than proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. & Mrs. Steven Price 1403 Shadow Creek Place Brandon, FL 33510 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, FL 33614 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Because she was interested in becoming licensed as a foster parent, Respondent entered the Petitioner's "Group Preparation and Selection, Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting" (GPS/MAPP) training program in February 1995. GPS/MAPP is a mutual selection process whereby a prospective foster parent becomes informed as to the duties and responsibilities of being a foster parent and the agency is afforded the opportunity to evaluate whether the prospect would make a suitable foster parent. Petitioner requires that each prospective foster parent provide it with verified financial information as to his or her income and expenses. The type information the prospect may submit to verify income includes W-2 forms, tax returns, canceled checks and bank statements. Petitioner considers it necessary that each prospective foster parent have income that exceeds expenses because the needs of the foster child may exceed the monies paid by Petitioner to foster parents and the provision for those needs should not solely depend on the payments the foster parent receives from Petitioner. If a participant in the GPS/MAPP program does not verify his or her income, the prospect's participation in the program is terminated by Petitioner. Petitioner considers a prospect to have been "selected out" when his or her participation in the program is terminated. Respondent was asked to provide the requisite financial information. The financial statement she provided reflected expenses that exceeded her verified income by $1,220.00 per month. Respondent was told as a member of the class that she would be required to verify all her income. After she provided the financial statement that did not verify all of her claimed income, Respondent was specifically advised by Elliott Maddox that such verification would be necessary for her to remain a member of the class. Mr. Maddox also advised Respondent of the type information that would be required. After her discussion with Mr. Maddox, Respondent provided Petitioner with a notarized statement from Eddie Grace, her ex-husband. Although the statement is notarized, the notary is only attesting to the signature of Mr. Grace. Consequently, the statement was not in affidavit form. This statement stated the following: I, Eddie Grace, give my ex-wife, Algeria Grace, 1,200 (sic) and will continue to do so every month as long as I live. I also own a busin- ess and she is part owner of Grace Family Lawn Services. The final judgment dissolving the marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Grace did not require Mr. Grace to pay any money to Mrs. Grace on a monthly basis. The statement from Mr. Grace was all the information provided by Respondent to verify her income of $1,200 per month. There was no financial information from Grace Family Lawn Services that verified she received $1,200 per month from that business. Petitioner advised Mrs. Grace that the information she had provided was insufficient to verify her income and told her that she would be selected out of the program if she did not promptly provide additional verification. Respondent failed to provide additional verification of her income. Because she did not verify her income, Respondent was selected out of the training program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that sustains the termination of Respondent's participation in its Group Preparation and Selection, Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting training program. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Friedlieb, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 201 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Ms. Algeria Grace 3540 Northwest 8th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent's foster home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Azulphar had a foster home license issued by the Department. Ms. Azulphar became a foster parent in January 1999. As with all new foster parents, Ms. Azulphar was required to complete 30 hours of Model Approach to Partnership Parenting (MAPP) training. Among other things, the MAPP training involves discussions regarding duties and responsibilities of a foster parent, the sexual problems of foster care children, and what to do if a foster care child runs away. Ms. Azulphar and the Department entered into a Bilateral Service Agreement regarding foster care. Both of them agreed to abide by the terms of the Bilateral Service Agreement. The Bilateral Service Agreement provided, among other things, the following: The Department's responsibilities to the foster parents include: * * * j. Support will be shown by responding within 24 hours to telephone messages, written correspondence or any other requests the foster parents may have. * * * Commitment to the Child The decision to accept a child into the home is a major one. . . Most foster children have experienced severe emotional, sexual and/or physical abuse as well as trauma. It is not unusual for children who have been sexually abused to act out in sexual inappropriate ways. Foster parents must be aware that these children need extra monitoring, teaching and showing of appropriate affection in order to grow into healthy children. . . By accepting a child into the home, the foster parent(s) agree to the following responsibilities: * * * d. To ensure that the child has supervision appropriate to his/her age and developmental level. * * * Foster parents have responsibilities and duties to both the department [sic] and the child. Responsibilities to the department [sic] include: * * * k. To notify the Department immediately if a child runs away, is missing or does not return home, even if the foster parent knows where the child is. * * * s. To know where and with whom the child is staying and the type of supervision the child is receiving when foster parents approve an outing or overnight activity. . . Non-compliance with any of the above provisions can result in termination of this service agreement by either the foster parents or the Department. Non-compliance with any of the above [sic] provisions may also result in the department [sic] revoking the home's license to provide foster care pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. . . . Any person living with a foster parent is subject to a background check by the Department because such person would have contact with any foster child placed with the foster parent. Such person must not have a disqualifying criminal record1 in order for the person to remain in the foster home during the licensure of the foster home. Ms. Azulphar had a tenant, Louis Bryant, who lived in an attached room to her home, which was converted from a garage. He had his own private entrance to his room. In January 2002, the Department informed Ms. Azulphar that Mr. Bryant, not only had a criminal record, but also had a disqualifying criminal drug record and that, therefore, if she wanted to keep her license, he would have to move. Ms. Azulphar informed Mr. Bryant that he had to move. Mr. Bryant moved, and Ms. Azulphar provided documentation to the Department indicating that he had moved. Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as a long-time friend and someone that she had relied upon when she first came to the United States. Mr. Bryant was also Ms. Azulphar's former supervisor. Further, even though he was a drug addict, who was skinny and dirty, smelled bad, and needed reminding to bathe, Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as the only person upon whom she could call when she had an emergency. She also indicated that Mr. Bryant was a handy man who performed repairs for her. Ms. Azulphar admitted that, as to Mr. Bryant, she was a "co-partner." She further admitted that Mr. Bryant was someone she "needs to continue what she was doing." In spite of her reliance upon Mr. Bryant as indicated, Ms. Azulphar showed a willingness to comply with the Department's requirements by requiring Mr. Bryant to move. On or about May 8, 2002, a foster child, F.D.,2 was placed with Ms. Azulphar. F.D. was 12 years of age at the time. F.D. was a special needs foster child because she had a history of being sexually abused at an early age and because F.D.'s father was deceased and her mother had voluntarily surrendered her parental rights. F.D. was the subject of disciplinary action at school. She was suspended for ten days from school for pulling a knife on another student. During the suspension, Ms. Azulphar took F.D. to work with her. F.D. left Ms. Azulphar's workplace without Ms. Azulphar's permission and knowledge. F.D. called her friends who came to Ms. Azulphar's workplace and F.D. left with them. Ms. Azulphar discovered that F.D. was dating a young man who was much older than F.D. Ms. Azulphar believed that the young man was approximately 26 years of age because he "looked" 26 years of age and F.D.'s friends were dating young men who also looked 26 years of age. Ms. Azulphar believed that the young man was among the friends that F.D. contacted to leave Ms. Azulphar's workplace. Also, during F.D.'s suspension, on the afternoon of May 16, 2002, her Guardian Ad-Litem came to Ms. Azulphar's home to visit F.D. The Guardian Ad-Litem knocked but no one answered. F.D. emerged from a neighbor's house. Ms. Azulphar had left F.D. alone at home. Ms. Azulphar had instructed F.D. to wait for the Guardian Ad-Litem at home and to not go outside of the home. Ms. Azulphar talked with the Guardian Ad-Litem on the telephone that same day. She expressed to the Guardian Ad-Litem that she wanted F.D. out of her home. That evening on May 16, 2002, F.D. became so distraught and volatile that she took a knife and threatened to harm herself. Ms. Azulphar called the Department's emergency telephone number and was told to call the Crisis Center for Mobile Children (CCMC). Ms. Azulphar telephoned CCMC, which told her how to talk to F.D. Ms. Azulphar did as she was instructed and F.D. did not harm herself. The next day, May 17, 2002, sometime in the evening after bedtime, which was around 9 p.m., F.D. slipped out of Ms. Azulphar's home. Ms. Azulphar had taken a sleeping pill and was not aware that F.D. was gone. Around 4 a.m. on May 18, 2002, Ms. Azulphar received a telephone call from F.D., who wanted Ms. Azulphar to come and get her. Ms. Azulphar did not want to drive at that time because she had taken the sleeping pill, so Ms. Azulphar asked F.D. to have an adult come to the telephone. Ms. Azulphar believed that F.D. was at a party because of the background noise that she heard, which sounded like a party. Ms. Azulphar recognized that the person who came to the telephone was not an adult, but Ms. Azulphar requested that F.D. be permitted to stay at the person's home until 6 a.m. when she (Ms. Azulphar) would pick-up F.D. F.D. did not wait for Ms. Azulphar. She returned to Ms. Azulphar's home before Ms. Azulphar could get her. Ms. Azulphar did not call the police when she discovered that F.D. was leaving her (Ms. Azulphar's) workplace with the young man who was 26 years of age and when she received the telephone call from F.D. The reason that Ms. Azulplhar did not call the police is that she believed that the police would do more harm than good to F.D., that F.D. had had enough trouble, and that F.D. was a Haitian as she was. After F.D. returned to Ms. Azulphar's home on May 18, 2002, Ms. Azulphar contacted the Guardian Ad-Litem and requested the removal of F.D. from her home. The Guardian Ad-Litem reported the incident to the court and the court ordered an investigation and the removal of F.D. from Ms. Azulphar's home. The Guardian Ad-Litem did not know the results of the court's investigation. During the time that F.D. was in Ms. Azulphar's home, Ms. Azulphar also had, in addition to her own child, T.A., two other foster children, A.A. and her sister, V.A.3 All of the other children agree that F.D. could not be trusted, was a thief, and did not tell the truth. After F.D. was removed from her home, Ms. Azulphar had another foster child placed in her home, who ran away. However, this time, Ms. Azulphar contacted the police and the Department when she discovered that the child had run away. Sometime during the first two weeks that F.D. was placed with Ms. Azulphar,4 the Department's social worker for F.D., Luis Muriel, was making arrangements with Ms. Azulphar to pick-up F.D. Ms. Azulphar requested Mr. Muriel to come to her workplace since F.D. would be there with her; however, he wanted Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone. Ms. Azulphar reminded him that she was not to leave F.D. at home alone. However, Mr. Muriel instructed Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone and informed Ms. Azulphar that he would be arriving at her home in 30 minutes. Ms. Azulphar contacted a male friend, who was approximately 50 years of age, for assistance and requested that he wait at her home for Mr. Muriel, who would be arriving in 30 minutes. However, she instructed her friend to wait outside in his car, not in her home, and he agreed to do so. When Mr. Muriel arrived at Ms. Azulphar's home and knocked on the door, Ms. Azulphar's friend opened the door. Ms. Azulphar's friend had not complied with her instructions and had gone into her home while F.D. was in the home. The Department had not performed a background check on Ms. Azulphar's friend. There was no reason for the Department to perform a background check on Ms. Azulphar's friend since it was never intended by Ms. Azulphar that he would have contact with the foster children placed with her. As to the incident, Ms. Azulphar had made it clear to her friend that he was not to go inside the home. On May 29, 2002, around 8 p.m., the licensing counselor for Ms. Azulphar's case, Reynaldo Gonzalez, made an unannounced visit to her home after being contacted by F.D.'s Guardian Ad-Litem regarding F.D.'s situation. By that time, F.D. had been removed from Ms. Azulphar's home. Mr. Gonzalez noticed a car parked outside of the house. He knocked on the door. The foster child A.A., who was approximately 15 years of age at the time, looked through the window and informed Mr. Gonzalez that Ms. Azulphar was not at home. Mr. Gonzalez returned around 8:30 p.m. and A.A. was still at home alone. Ms. Azulphar had left A.A. at home alone. However, Mr. Gonzalez's primary concern was not A.A.'s being at home alone. On the following day, around 6:20,5 Mr. Gonzalez returned to Ms. Azulphar's home because the Department had received anonymous information that no food was in the home. The same car was parked outside Ms. Azulphar's home, but the front of the car was parked in a different direction. Ms. Azulphar was not at home, but a relative, who was there, permitted Mr. Gonzalez to enter. Mr. Gonzalez found that there was adequate food in the home. None of the foster children were at home; they were with Ms. Azulphar. Mr. Gonzalez's testimony failed to indicate whether the car was parked along the street or in the driveway. An inference is drawn that the car was parked along the street. Ms. Azulphar voluntarily admitted to Mr. Gonzalez that Mr. Bryant was the owner of the car. She wanted Mr. Bryant to park his car outside her home to make it look as if someone were at home because her home had been burglarized when no one was at home. Further, on one of the days referred to, Mr. Bryant's car was either in disrepair or out of gas.6 According to the Department, Mr. Bryant should not have parked his car in front of Ms. Azulphar's home on the street. However, the evidence fails to demonstrate that such conduct by Mr. Bryant involved contact with the foster children. Ms. Azulphar admits that, at times, Mr. Bryant accompanied her shopping even when the foster children were with her. Ms. Azulphar also admits that Mr. Bryant has cut her grass, but only when she was at home. Ms. Azulphar testified that she obtained the approval of the Department for cutting the grass even though no Department witness recalled approving the action. Ms. Azulphar's testimony is found to be credible. Ms. Azulphar used poor judgment as it relates to Mr. Bryant. At first, Ms. Azulphar believed that, even though Mr. Bryant could not continue to be a tenant, she could continue to have Mr. Bryant to assist her with some things. She now knows that, as long as she has foster children, the Department does not want him to be around the children at any time. Ms. Azulphar believed that nothing was wrong with Mr. Bryant parking or leaving his car at her house. Now, she knows that the Department does not want him to be near her home when she has foster children. A.A. and V.A. were removed from Ms. Azulphar's home when the Department decided to revoke her foster home license. Both A.A. and V.A. want to return to Ms. Azulphar's home. Ms. Azulphar's daughter is in complete agreement with her mother being a foster parent and wants A.A. and V.A. to return.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing the revocation action of the foster home license of Marie Claire Azulphar. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2003.
The Issue Whether the Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster home care for dependent children should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners applied for licensure from Respondent as a Family Foster Home in 1995; the application was subsequently amended to a Therapeutic Foster Home. Respondent began the preparation of the Family Portfolio and Petitioners began Pre-Service Training. Petitioners attended and completed the required 21 hours of pre-service training for prospective foster family parents, called Group Preparation and Selection, GPS-MAPP. on June 12, 1995. Petitioner Carmen Delvalle also attended and completed a 40 hour pre- service training for prospective medical foster parents. During this time, in anticipation of being licensed, Petitioners made modifications to their home and purchased furniture that would accommodate the placement of foster children. Respondent, in preparing the Petitioners' Family Portfolio, determined that Petitioners had previously been licensed in Westchester County, New York, as foster parents from May 1987 through December 1988. The inquiry with the county Foster Home Resource Unit revealed that Petitioners' home was closed by mutual decision between Petitioners and the county Department of Social Services. The Department would not recommend that Petitioners be relicensed based on the appearance that Mrs. Delvalle was overwhelmed by the needs of foster children, which resulted in frequent relocation of children placed in her care, and appeared to be unable to understand and cope with the needs of typical foster children. Petitioner Carmen Delvalle testified that Petitioners' termination as foster parents in New York was not due to being overwhelmed by the needs of the children. Rather, it was due to the fact that Petitioners were housed in a walk-up apartment and their neighbors were constantly complaining about the noise the children would make. In addition, they received very little support and training from the Department of Social Services, and the Department was constantly placing 5 and 6 children in her home when they were only licensed to care for three children at a time. Petitioners now feel that they are better prepared to serve as foster parents because they both love children; their own children are now adults and they can give a lot of time and attention to any foster children placed in their home; they are better qualified and trained now, and can deal with the special demands of caring for foster children and medically challenged foster children. The Respondent's Senior Program Analyst prepared the Family Portfolio for the Petitioners, which included two in-home interviews. She was also Petitioners' MAPP trainer. Her evaluation of the Petitioners' application was that they did not meet the standards of Respondent, as set forth in Chapter 10M- 6, Florida Administrative Code, because of her concern that Petitioners could not cope with the stresses of being a foster parent seven days a week, twenty- four hours a day. Respondent's Licensing Administrator Marlene Richmond reviewed the completed Family Portfolio pertaining to the Petitioners and called for a staffing review of their file. She also interviewed Petitioner and determined that, although sincere, Petitioners did not exhibit an understanding of the training they received. They also could not articulate how they would respond to the pressures they would be under once a foster child was placed in their home. In her opinion, Petitioners did not meet the standards. Petitioners are caring, sincere people who wish to offer themselves and their home for the care of children in need of foster care. Petitioners' house meets the physical standards set out by Respondent, and the Petitioners have completed the required pre-service training. However, Petitioners have not articulated an understanding or exhibited the capability to take on the "role" to be successful foster parents. Petitioners do not meet the standards for licensure as foster home or a medical foster home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a final order DENYING Petitioners' application for licensure as a foster home for dependent children. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Antonio Delvalle pro se Carmen Delvalle pro se 7933 Toler Court Orlando, Florida 32822 Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should Respondent's family foster home license be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined based on the facts alleged in the Notice of Denial dated August 27, 1998, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of licensing family foster homes and administering the foster care program as it relates to family foster homes, such as providing foster care supervision and services. On June 16, 1997, Kristie and Robert Huggins (Huggins) of 1403 Chamberlain Loop, Lake Wales, Polk County, Florida, were issued a Certificate of License by the Department to operate a family foster home for children. Subsequently, the Department placed foster care children in the Huggins' home. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department had the children A.M., born December 29, 1996, L.M., born September 30, 1995, and A.C., born October 22, 1996, placed in the Huggins' home. The Notice of Denial dated August 27, 1998, provides in pertinent part as follows: . This letter provides notice that your license as a foster home is revoked based on Section 409.175(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 65C- 13.001, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The reasons for the revocation are as follows: Vickie Barron, of Nurturing Families Project, Evelyn Liamison [sic], Guardian Ad Litem, and Family Service Counselors Patrice Thigpen and Desiree Smith noted as to Mrs. Huggins' "possessiveness" of the children toward the birth parents. The children were known in the Busy Bee Preschool as the "Huggins Children." The children's belongings were marked as "Huggins." These actions violate Rule 65C-13.010(1)(b)(1)(c)(F.A.C.), which states that substitute care parents are expected to help children in their care to maintain a sense of their past and record of their present. Bruises and other injuries noted by Vickie Barron of Nurturing Families Project, Evelyn Liamison [sic], Guardian Ad Litem, and the birth parents. The Busy Bee Preschool also noted bruises and various injuries to the three children on 2/13/98, 2/26/98, 3/2/98. 3/16/98, and 3/23/98. While they resided in the Huggins' home. Since the children have moved from the home, these types of injuries are not occurring. Rule 65C-13.009(e)(10) (F.A.C.), require that foster parents must be able to provide a healthy and safe environment for children and youth and keep them from harm. You have failed to comply with this rule. Desiree Smith, Family Service Counselor, noted that on 3/12/98, when Mrs. Huggins was questioned about a bruise on a male foster child, she told Desiree Smith that the bruise occurred at the daycare. The daycare notes reflected that Mrs. Huggins told the daycare that the bruise was received at the doctor's office. This violates Rule 65C- 13.010(4)(1)(F.A.C.), which states that the substitute care parents must notify the department immediately of illness or accidents involving the child. You did not notify the department when you and Mr. Huggins separated. This violates Rule 65C-13.010(4)(g), which states substitute care parents must notify the department regarding changes which affect the life and circumstances of the foster family. Your violation of the above mentioned Administrative Rules created an unsafe environment for foster children. Section 409.175(8)(b)1, Florida Statutes. At the beginning of the hearing, the Department made an ore tenus motion to amend certain rule citations in the Notice of Denial. The motion was granted and the citations to Rules 65C-13.010(1)(b)(1)(c)(F.A.C.); 65C-13.009(e)(10)(F.A.C.); 65C-13.010(4)(1)(F.A.C.); and 65C-13.0010(4)(g)(F.A.C.) were amended to read as follows: Rules 65C-13.010(1)(b)1.c.; 65C-13.009(1)(e)10.; 65C-13.010(4)(j); and 65C-13.010(4)(g), Florida Administrative Code, respectively. Respondent was a very loving, caring and affectionate foster parent and expressed her love, care, and affection with L.M., A. M., and A.C. both in and out of the foster home. From the very beginning, Respondent understood that the ultimate goal for L.M. and A.M. was reunification with their biological parents. At some point in time after A.C. was placed in foster care with Respondent, she expressed a desire to adopt A.C. At this time, Respondent understood (mistakenly) that the goal was to terminate the parental rights of A.C.'s biological parents. However, the Department's goal was for reunification and not termination of parental rights. In fact, it is not unusual for foster parents to adopt a child placed in their care when and if the Department terminates the parental rights of the biological parents and offers the child for adoption. Upon learning of the Department's goal of reunification for A.C., Respondent did not pursue the issue of adoption of A.C. Apparently, Vicky Barron and, to some degree, Evelyn Lamison misunderstood Respondent's love, care, and affection for these children as possessive and interfering with the goal of reunification. Vicky Barron is employed by Regency Medical Center, Winter Haven, Florida, supervising the Nurturing Families Program. Evelyn Lamison is the guardian ad litem for L.M. and A.M. Patricia Bryant, Family Service Counselor with the Department, described Respondent as being over-protective but did not see Respondent's love, care, and affection for the children as being an attempt to undermine the goal of reunification. Respondent enrolled L.M., A.M., and A.C., in the Busy Bee Preschool. At the Busy Bee Preschool, the children were at times referred to as the "Huggins" children. However, there was no attempt by Respondent or her husband to conceal the fact that the children were their foster children. They were enrolled under their biological parents' name. Some of their belongings were marked "Huggins" and some of the belongings were marked in the child's given name. The marking of the children's belongings was for the convenience of the Busy Bee Preschool and not intended as a means to deprive the children of sense of their past or present. Although there may have been some hostility on the part of both the Respondent and the biological parents of the children, there was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent, either intentionally or unintentionally, attempted to interfere, sabotage, or prevent the ultimate goal of reunification of the children with the biological parents, notwithstanding the testimony of Vicky Barron and Evelyn Lamison to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility. Without question, there were bruises, scratches and bug bites on L.M., A.M., and A.C. during their stay at Respondent's foster home. Some of these scratches and bruises occurred in and around Respondent's home, some of them occurred at the Busy Bee Preschool. On at least one occasion (March 12, 1998) A.C. fell while in the doctor's office and bruised his face. This bruise was noted in the Busy Bee Preschool notes, as were other scratches and bruises to the children received at home or at the Busy Bee Preschool. The incident of March 12, 1998, was documented by the doctor's office. In fact, it became the basis of an abuse report filed against Respondent which was determined to be unfounded. This alleged abuse was not reported until June 4, 1998. There is no evidence to support the allegation that Respondent told Desiree Smith that the bruise to A.C.'s face which occurred at the doctor's office occurred at the Busy Bee Preschool. Another abuse report was filed against Respondent concerning L.M. and A.M. on March 24, 1998, which was closed as unfounded. Vicky Barron testified that she was the reporter in both abuse reports. She also testified that she disagreed with the Child Protective Investigator's finding that there was no evidence of abuse. Her disagreement was such that she contacted the Investigator's supervisor in an attempt to have the finding reversed. Based on the testimony of the Department personnel and the Busy Bee Preschool personnel who testified at the hearing, it is clear that these bruises, scratches, and bug bites were no more or no less severe than bruises, scratches, and bug bites experienced by other active children the age of L.M., A.M., and A.C., notwithstanding the testimony of Vicky Barron and, to some degree, Evelyn Lamison to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility. Although there is no allegation concerning the Respondent's home, it is clear that Respondent kept her home neat, clean, and safe (although there was some clutter at times). However, when a matter concerning the children's safety was brought to Respondent's attention it was corrected. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent failed to provide a healthy and safe environment for L.M., A.M., and A.C. and to keep them from harm. While there may have been problems between Kristie Huggins and Eric Huggins, Kristie Huggins did not anticipate a separation until April 23, 1998, when Eric Huggins failed to return home after his trip out of town. Through Patty Fazzino, Respondent advised the Department's office in Tallahassee, Florida, of the separation. Subsequently, the Department's Tallahassee office advised the Lakeland office. Although Respondent did not directly notify the Department's local foster care licensing personnel, the Respondent did not intentionally or unintentionally fail to notify the Department of her separation from Eric Huggins. Likewise, Respondent did not fail to immediately notify the Department of any illness or accidents concerning L.M., A.M., and A.C. which required department notification. It appears from the testimony of Mary Jordan that Respondent has completed the necessary hours of training for relicensure but would need to complete some paper work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Respondent Kristie (Huggins) Pfingston her family foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Raymond A. Goodwill, Jr., Esquire 107 Avenue A, Northwest Post Office Box 2334 Winter Haven, Florida 33883
