The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a foster care license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Joan Henry (Ms. Henry), was licensed by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), as a foster parent in 1992. She continued to be licensed until sometime in 1994. The foster home was officially closed September 19, 1994. She applied for relicensure as a foster parent, and her application was denied by HRS. During the time relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Henry cared for five foster children, B.W., S.W., S.A.W., T.W., and T.B. Ms. Henry's adult daughter, Jiliane, lived with Ms. Henry during this time. Jiliane took care of the children while Ms. Henry worked during the day. HRS was aware of this arrangement. On May 25, 1994, Ms. Henry signed an Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for Dependent Children for the five children in her care. Ms. Henry agreed to abide by the following provisions of the agreement. 2. We are fully and directly responsible to the department for the care of the child. * * * 6. We will not give the child into the care or physical custody of any other person(s), including the natural parent(s), without the consent of a representative of the department. * * * 11. We will notify the department immediately of any change in our address, employment, living arrangements, family composition, or law enforcement involvement. * * * 15. We will comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the department. In late June, 1994 or early July, 1994, Ms. Henry received a call that her mother's best friend had died in London, England. Ms. Henry went to London. Ms. Henry could not get in touch with an HRS representative and asked Jiliane to notify HRS that she had been called out of the country unexpectedly. Jiliane failed to notify HRS. Ms. Henry was in London for several weeks. On July 5, 1994, HRS received a call that the Ms. Henry's children had been watching pornographic films in the Henry home and that the children were exhibiting inappropriate sexual behavior. A child abuse investigator visited the Henry household and found that Ms. Henry was away in London and that the children had been left in the care of Jiliane. Prior to leaving for London, Ms. Henry was unaware that Jiliane had pornographic films in the house. Ms. Henry did observe B.W. watching television in Jiliane's room. When Ms. Henry would go by the room, B.W. would quickly switch channels. This happened on numerous occasions. Ms. Henry was "very concerned" and "suspicious" about B.W. changing the channels each time Ms. Henry walked by, but she took no action to investigate the cause of B.W.'s behavior. After Ms. Henry returned from London, she learned that Jiliane did have some pornographic films which she kept in her room. B.W. had access to the films and did view them. Rosalyn Jackson is a licensed foster care parent. She was interested in adopting at least one of the children in Ms. Henry's care. She visited the children in Ms. Henry's home and would take the children to her home on weekends. While the children were in her home, she observed that the children used vulgar language. S.A.W. would try to kiss or touch Ms. Jackson's rear when Ms. Jackson would bend over to pick up something. B.W. would go into the bathroom and fondle herself. T.W. and S.A.W. would try to fondle each other. At that time B.W. was nine years old, S.A.W. was four, and T.W. was three. The children were removed from Ms. Henry's home. Two of the children were placed with Ms. Jackson's sister and one of the children was placed with Ms. Jackson. Ms. Jackson described the children as undernourished. T.W.'s hair was unkempt and dirty and looked as if it had not been cut or washed for a long time. When Ms. Jackson's sister had T.W.'s hair cut and washed, it was discovered that T.W.'s scalp was covered with a fungus. T.W.'s ears contained "black gook" which appeared to have been in his ears for quite a while. S.A.W. was wearing shoes that were two sizes too small.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Joan Henry's application for a foster parent license. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 14th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3042 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Ms. Henry testified that B.W. would switch channels not Jiliane. Paragraphs 4-5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance as it applies to the child, B.W. Rejected as to the other children because the only evidence presented was hearsay. Paragraphs 7-8: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Ms. Joan Henry 18601 Northwest 22 Court Miami, Florida 33056 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioners' foster home license should be denied on the basis that the abuse registry examined during the re-licensure process disclosed a verified finding of abandonment of a child, recorded against the Petitioners as perpetrators, under authority of Section 409.175(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners were licensed as a foster home and sometime in the latter part of 1999, their licensure came due for renewal. They were advised by a denial letter dated October 8, 1999, from the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), that their home would not be re-licensed as a foster home. The initial agency decision to this effect was because the Petitioners, or at least Mr. Barnes, had an entry on the Department's abuse registry indicating a verified finding of abandonment against the Petitioners. The finding of abandonment involved the Petitioners' adopted son, D.B., being left at the office of the Department's foster care staff. Apparently the Barnes had had a great deal of trouble with D.B.'s behavior and had been unable to constructively discipline him and improve his behavior. This apparently made them very frustrated such that on March 26, 1999, Mr. Barnes called the Department regarding D.B., to inform the Department that they were simply unable to handle the child. Mr. Barnes talked to James Grant, supervisor of the foster care unit in the Department's Ocala office, and a witness for the Department in this case. Mr. Grant offered to provide assistance to the family to help resolve the issues between the Petitioners and their child. That offer of assistance was refused, however. Later that day, Mr. Barnes took D.B. to the Ocala offices of the Department's foster care unit and apparently left him sitting in the lobby of the building which houses the foster care staff. Mr. Barnes did not speak to Mr. Grant or anyone else in a responsible position before leaving the building and permanently abandoning the child. He only informed the receptionist that he was leaving the child. Because of the Petitioners' actions in leaving the child sitting in the lobby, a call was placed to the abuse hotline that same day. Joanne Hunter was assigned as the investigator of the abuse report. According to the final report of the investigation that was admitted into evidence, the case was closed with a verified indication of abandonment and neglect, the result of D.B. being abandoned in the Department's lobby. On March 27, 1999, a shelter hearing was held before a circuit judge and D.B. was placed in the custody of the Department due to the Petitioner's act of abandonment at the Department's office. Subsequently, the child was adjudicated dependent and placed in a long-term foster care placement. The child remained in that foster care placement at the time of the instant hearing. Certified copies of the judge's shelter order and the order of adjudication and disposition have been entered into evidence in this case. Prior to their adoption by the Petitioners, D.B. and his two siblings had been abused and neglected by their natural parents. They had, therefore, been placed in foster care by the Department. D.B.'s natural parents' parental rights had been terminated because of the uncorrected and continuing abuse and neglect of D.B. and his two siblings. The Petitioners had adopted D.B. and his two siblings. Children who have been abused and neglected or abandoned by their parents are especially vulnerable and require the greatest degree of stability in their home life that is possible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying the re-licensure of the Petitioners as a licensed family foster home. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Billie and Willie Mae Barnes 15606 Southwest 27th Avenue Road Ocala, Florida 34473 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 43785 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should deny Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster home care for dependent children pursuant to Section 409.175, Florida Statutes (1999). (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating foster care in the state. Petitioners were foster care parents until October 5, 2000, when Petitioners voluntarily surrendered their foster care license for medical reasons. Prior to October 5, 2000, Mrs. Williams suffered from high blood pressure and dizziness. She was physically unable to care for foster children and asked that Respondent remove all foster children from her home. Before her medical problems began, Mrs. Williams complained to Respondent that she could not provide foster care for children with behavior problems. Mrs. Williams asked Respondent to remove certain children from her home because they presented behavioral problems with which she could not cope. In March of 2001, Petitioners applied for a new license to provide foster care. Petitioners did not provide any medical evidence, during the hearing or the application process, that Mrs. Williams has recovered from her medical problems. Her medical problems have a long medical history and come and go each year. Mrs. Williams is 62 years old. On the family profile sheet filed with Respondent, Mrs. Williams lists her occupation as "disabled."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioners' application for a license to provide foster care to dependent children. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Wilbert and Estella Williams 412 Pine Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services, District 7 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the foster care license of Joey and Donna Tolbert.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the home of Joey and Donna Tolbert was licensed by the Department as a foster home. They were initially licensed provisionally in December of 1998 for one year. They received a regular license in 1999 and retained a regular license until December 1, 2000, when they were issued license number 1200-008-2, a child specific license with a capacity of two children. The Relicensure Process Prior to issuing the child specific license, two Department employees of the Department, Mary Martin, a relicensing counselor for foster homes, and Ann Brock, a family services counselor, conducted a relicensing visit to the Tolbert's home on October 12, 2000. Donna Tolbert was present but Joey Tolbert was out of town. During the home visit, a Bilateral Service Agreement (Agreement) was signed by Mrs. Tolbert and Ms. Martin. The Agreement was signed and dated by Mr. Tolbert and again by Ms. Martin on October 17, 2000. The relicensing visit resulted in a Foster Home Relicensing Summary written by Mary Martin. The Summary recommended that the Tolberts be issued a regular license effective December 1, 2000 through December 1, 2001, for the capacity of two children. The Summary was signed by Mary Martin on October 26, 2000, and read in pertinent part as follows: The Tolbert family is an invaluable asset to this Department. They have made themselves available on a regular basis for the placement of children when needed. Both Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert are experienced in childcare and they have three (3) children with special needs whom they adopted prior. They should not be asked to take numerous children with severe behavioral problems or teenagers. It appears Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert have satisfied the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 65C-15, requirements. It is respectfully recommended that the Tolbert family be issued a REGULAR license, effective December 1, 2000, through December 1, 2001, for the a capacity of two (2) children, ages birth (0) through twelve (12) years of either gender. Children with severe behavioral problems and teenagers are not to be placed in the Tolbert home. However, Ms. Martin later wrote an addendum to the licensing summary. According to Ms. Martin, she was asked by her supervisor, Jill Green, to write the addendum. The addendum is undated but references the October 12, 2000, home relicensing visit that resulted in her original recommendation. There is also an entry dated October 16, 2000, which is a date prior in time to her signature to the original relicensure summary, and an entry dated November 17, 2000. The addendum relates to matters concerning the Tolberts and their adopted son, Mi.1/ Richard Messerly has worked for the Department for approximately 22 years and works in protective investigations in Pensacola. From June 1999 through September 2001, he was the program operations administrator for the central licensing unit of the Department. In that position, he had authority over foster care licensure. He supervised Mary Martin and her supervisor, Jill Green. Mr. Messerly signed Ms. Martin's relicensure summary on December 4, 2000, and initialed both pages of her addendum. He also created a written history of the Tolbert foster home which concluded with a recommendation that the Tolberts' foster home license be revoked: SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS The Tolbert family has a positive licensing history of capably caring for many of our foster children. However, a serious change has occurred in the family's willingness to work with our staff, including rebuffing our attempts to offer them assistance with the disruption of an adoptive placement. The Tolberts have attempted to convince others that they had been requesting assistance for M for a very long period of time and that this is flatly not borne out in licensing records. The matter was never brought to our attention until the visit in October 2000, at which time the matter was promptly referred to the adoptions unit, who responded promptly. Since that time the family has not cooperated with any attempts to assist them in that matter, and they seem to be insensitive to M's plight, and are completely focused on regaining their prior licensed status, as if nothing had happened. Contacts with Pat Franklin, Kathi Guy, Sally Townsend and others reflect the absence of any prompt attempts to get help dealing with M's behaviors, yet many requests were made regarding foster children in their care with similar problems during the same time frame. It appears the family was more focused on attending the needs of foster children to the exclusion of sensitivity to their own (adopted) child's cries for help. Even when the needs were identified, the family was unwilling to become involved in attempts to remedy the problems and appeared to have given up on the child. I am very uncomfortable with the inappropriate position this family has taken in regard to our family safety staff, as well as licensing staff, and do not see how we can hope to interact positively with them given their recent radical behaviors and threats. I feel that they have violated the Bilateral Service Agreement and have failed to "Treat all members of the foster care team with respect and courtesy." I recommend that we revoke the license using the violation of the agreement in conjunction with their other oppositional behaviors, omissions, and misrepresentations reflected in family safety foster care and adoptions records. On December 1, 2000, Mr. Messerly signed a letter on behalf of Charles Bates addressed to the Tolberts which read: Dear Mr. And Mrs. Tolbert: Your home has been relicensed for the continuance placement of D and M.R. only. No other placements or overcapacity requests will be authorized at this time. A regular license is issued for twelve months pending the outcome of matters presently before the Circuit Court. If you have questions or wish to discuss this further, please contact Jill Greene, Foster Care Licensing Supervisor at (850)- 595-8451. On June 4, 2001, Mrs. Tolbert met with Charles Bates, District Administrator for District 1 of the Department. This meeting was at Mrs. Tolbert's request regarding her foster care licensure status. During that meeting, Mrs. Tolbert complained to Mr. Bates about certain adoption case workers. On August 24, 2001, Charles Bates sent a letter to the Tolberts notifying them of the revocation of their license. The letter reads in pertinent part as follows: RE: Revocation of Foster Home License. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert: This letter is to inform you that the Department of Children and Families has made a decision to revoke your foster home license. The basis for this decision is your failure to comply with Florida Administrative Code 65C-13 and the Bilateral Service Agreement (form CF-FSP 5226) which you executed. Florida Administrative Code 65C-13.009(1)(e)5. states: Work in a partnership. Develop partnerships with children and youth, birth families, the department, and the community to develop and carry out plans for permanency. Florida Administrative Code 65C-13.010(1)(c)1. states: Substitute care parents are expected to work cooperatively with the counselor as a member of a treatment team in seeking counseling, participating in consultation, and preparing and implementing the performance agreement or permanent placement plan for each child. Florida Administrative Code 65C-13.010(4)(i) states: The substitute care parents must be able to accept supervision by department staff and participate in and support case plans for children in their homes. Specifically, substitute care parents must be included in the development of performance agreements or permanent placement plans, and in the carrying out of these plans. As part of your foster care licensing, you executed a bilateral Service Agreement. The Bilateral Service Agreement that you signed enumerated the Administrative Code responsibilities and detailed responsibilities of foster parents. The paragraphs violated are listed below in pertinent part: h. To notify the department immediately of a potential change in a family composition, significant health changes or any other condition that may affect the child's well- being. Obtain authorization from the department prior to spending money for which repayment is expected. To accept the direction and supervision given by department to assist in caring for the foster child. To work cooperatively with the department to attend scheduled meetings to discuss the child and his family and to meet the needs of the child. To treat all members of the foster care team (i.e., the department, child's family, and GALS) with respect and courtesy. As stated in the service agreement, non-compliance with any of the above provisions can result in termination of the service agreement and may also result in the department revoking the home's license. You have failed to comply with the above code citations and service agreement provisions in that you have accused departmental staff of failing to disclose complete information to you and of misrepresenting statements that you have made. You have not worked cooperatively with the department employees who offered to assist you and your child; and have not worked in partnership with the department. Specifically, you have previously stated you were obtaining therapy for a child, didn't agree with the therapist's recommendation, and were obtaining a psychiatric evaluation and assessment for the child, when in fact you did not do any of those things. A review of the department records reflected concerns you mentioned to the department in October 2000, regarding your child's disruptive behavior. However you would accept no assistance even though the department offered extensive assistance. You surrendered your adopted child later that same month. Further, you have stated to a department employee that Ms. Peggy Custred and Ms. Sally Townsend should not work for the department, have accused them of wrongdoing, and have stated that you "will have their jobs." You have failed to treat members of the department with respect and courtesy. Given the above problems, I find that it would not be in the children's best interests to continue licensing your foster home and am permanently revoking your license. The Tolberts as foster parents The overwhelming evidence shows that the Tolberts were excellent foster parents. Jane Crittenden, licensing supervisor for the Department, who was a foster care supervisor at the times material to this proceeding, acknowledged that the Tolberts received the award of Foster Parents of the Year in May of 2000 for the year 1999. She also acknowledged that as far as she knew, the Tolberts excelled as far as their work as foster parents; the foster children in their care did quite well; the Tolberts always seemed to provide a loving, nurturing home to foster children placed there; the Tolberts were called on by the Department to take extra children beyond their cap, which they agreed to do; and the Tolberts cooperated with her and her case workers during the period of time she worked with them. Arlene Johnson, a former guardian ad litem for a foster child in the Tolberts' home from December 1998 until July 1999, visited the Tolbert home about twice a week during that time. She has been in a lot of foster homes and described the Tolberts' home as "the best one I've been in." Gerald Reese, a family service counselor for the Department, worked with the Tolberts over a period of 6 to 7 months in 1999 and 2000 while he was a case worker. During that time, Mr. Reese did not have problems dealing with the Tolberts, did not observe any instance in which the children were not adequately provided for, and observed that the foster children in the Tolberts' home were happy. Richard Messerly acknowledged that the Tolberts were exemplary foster parents as far as the care they provided to the foster children in their care. Mr. Messerly also acknowledged that the only staff the Tolberts had problems with were particular members of the adoption staff, not the Department's foster care staff. The wallpaper expense Carlita Bennett was employed by the Department from 1986 until March of 2002. When she was working for the Department in the capacity of a foster parent recruiter in May of 2001, she sent an e-mail message to Mary Martin regarding the Tolberts which contained the following: 11/04/99 A restitution claim form was submitted by Mrs. T for damage to wallpaper caused by 2 yr. Old. The bill total was $1,151.04 to replace wallpaper in living room, dining room, kitchen and hall. PS Counselors were not made aware of the damage until repairs were made. According to Ms. Bennett, it is regular procedure for someone from the department to go out to a foster home and look at damage before repairs are made. The Bilateral Services Agreement requires the foster parents to obtain authorization from the Department prior to spending money for which repayment is expected. According to Ms. Bennett, this policy was not followed in this instance. Ms. Bennett did not explain why she sent the e-mail message on May 30, 2001, to Mary Martin referencing an incident that took place two and one-half years earlier. According to Mrs. Tolbert, a former two-year-old foster child in her care ripped the wallpaper in the dining room and the living room. Her dining room, kitchen, and hallway are all one color. According to Mrs. Tolbert, she gave an estimate of the repair work to Shiela Campbell, an employee of the Department. Richard Messerly acknowledged that this matter of the expense for wallpaper would not in and of itself have resulted in the Department revoking the Tolberts' foster care license. At most, the Department would have only talked to the Tolberts had there not been other issues about which the Department was concerned. Notification to Department of change of condition The August 24, 2001, revocation letter from Mr. Bates alleged that the Tolberts failed to notify the Department of a potential change in conditions in the home that might affect the well-being of foster care children in the home. This allegation relates to behavior problems of the Tolberts' adopted son, Mi. The Tolberts adopted Mi. in September of 1998. They signed surrenders of Mi. in November of 2000. The Tolberts' surrender of Mi. was central to the Department's decision to revoke the Tolbert's foster care license.2/ Mi. began having serious behavior problems in 1999. Mrs. Tolbert recalls telling Gerald Reese, the foster care worker assigned to the Tolberts at that time, about problems with Mi. Mr. Reese acknowledged that Mrs. Tolbert mentioned to him problems she was having with Mi. to which he responded that she should bring it to the attention of the adoption case worker. The Tolberts' adoption case worker was Sally Townsend. Mrs. Townsend recalls that Mrs. Tolbert stopped by her office three times when Mrs. Tolbert was in the Ft. Walton Beach Service Center to see other department employees. Mrs. Townsend acknowledged that Mrs. Tolbert told her of behavior problems with Mi. the first time she stopped by Mrs. Townsend's office. The second time Mrs. Townsend recalls that Mrs. Tolbert told her Mi.'s behavior problems were better. The third time, however, Mrs. Tolbert informed Mrs. Townsend that Mi.'s behavior was much worse. Mrs. Tolbert remembers these encounters with Mrs. Townsend differently. According to Mrs. Tolbert, she met with Mrs. Townsend approximately 10 times during which she spoke to her about Mi.'s behavior problems. According to Mrs. Townsend's case notes, Mrs. Tolbert told her on October 24, 2000, that Mi. was urinating all over the house, had gotten a butcher knife out of a drawer in the kitchen, and shoved a puppy's head under a piece of furniture. Evidence was presented at hearing regarding whether or when the Tolberts received notice that Mi. had significant problems before he was adopted by the Tolberts. However, what is important for purposes of this proceeding is when was the Department notified of Mi.'s problems. The Department knew of Mi.'s previous problems prior in time to the Tolberts adopting Mi. and were told as early as 1999 that the Tolberts were experiencing behavior problems with Mi. Kathi Guy is an adoption program specialist for the department. She met with the Tolberts immediately after Mrs. Tolbert met with Mr. Bates on June 4, 2001. On June 21, 2001, she wrote a memorandum to Charles Bates concerning the issues relating to the Tolberts. Regarding the issue of the Tolberts' responsibility of notifying the Department of Mi.'s behavior in relation to the foster children in the home, Ms. Guy wrote, "It is unclear what responsibility the Tolberts had to inform Central Licensing of M's behaviors that may have had injurious effects on foster children in their care." Working in partnership The June 24, 2001, revocation letter alleges that the Tolberts failed to work in partnership with the Department and did not obtain certain services for Mi. although they were offered. It is important to remember that the provisions to which Mr. Bates' revocation letter references are part of the Bilateral Services Agreement that pertained to the Tolberts' role as foster parents. However, Mi. was their adopted son, he was not a foster child at that time. Further, there is ample evidence in the record that the Tolberts sought and received services for Mi. over time, although they were in disagreement with the Department regarding certain services during the time immediately preceding the surrender of Mi. Marianne Vance is a first grade teacher. Mi. was in her class for two years. According to Ms. Vance, Mi. received testing in school for learning disabilities and for "everything possible." When Mi.'s behavior problems became worse during his second year in Ms. Vance's class, Mrs. Tolbert sought assistance from the school. The school counselor worked with Mi. and Mrs. Tolbert. According to Ms. Vance, the Tolberts did everything possible in seeking help or assistance.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order rescinding its revocation of the Tolberts' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2002.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's foster home license should be revoked for the reasons stated in the Petitioner's letter dated September 19, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Children and Family Services is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating family foster homes in Florida. Section 409.175, Florida Statutes (1997). Mary Mitchell's home was licensed as a family foster home from 1990 until her home was closed by the Department in September 1997. Neither Ms. Mitchell nor her home has been the subject of a complaint prior to that underlying the instant case. In August 1997, A. D. and his sisters, C. D. and L. B., were foster children residing in Ms. Mitchell's home. At the time, A. D. was five years old, C. D. was eight years old, and L. B. was ten years old. During a family therapy session at the Walden Community Center, the children reported to a counselor that they were beaten regularly by Ms. Mitchell. The counselor immediately called the Department's Abuse Hotline, and a Protective Investigator was dispatched to the home. The counselor at the Walden Community Center also notified the foster care counselor assigned by the Department to monitor the children that the children had reported that A. D. was beaten by Ms. Mitchell every time he wet his pants and that L. B. and C. D. said that they were also beaten by Ms. Mitchell. The Department's protective investigator took A. D., C. D., and L. B. for evaluation to the University of Miami Child Protection Team. Walter F. Lambert, M.D., a member of the Child Protection Team, was asked to perform a medical evaluation of the children to determine if they had suffered any physical punishment or injury. A case worker in Dr. Lambert's office interviewed the three children, and they all claimed that they were regularly beaten with belts and switches by Ms. Mitchell and her son. A physical examination of L. B. and C. D. revealed no marks on their bodies. A physical examination of A. D. revealed several red marks, bruises, and scabbed over abrasions on his buttocks, anterior upper thighs, and posterior thighs. These marks were consistent with having been inflicted within several days of the examination. As part of his physical examination of A. D., Dr. Lambert interviewed him about the origin of the marks. A. D. told Dr. Lambert that he was hit with a "twig from the holly tree," but he did not identify the person who hit him. The marks Dr. Lambert found on A. D.'s body were consistent with having been inflicted with a switch taken from a tree. The children were removed from Ms. Mitchell's home and placed in another foster home. The children soon complained that they were beaten in this new foster home, but no marks were found on their bodies to corroborate these allegations. The children are no longer in this foster home but have been placed in a new foster home for therapeutic reasons. Ms. Mitchell observed A. D.'s sisters whipping him with switches and a belt on more than one occasion. Each time she saw this behavior, she immediately stopped it. The Department has presented no credible evidence to establish that Ms. Mitchell punished A. D., or his sisters, by beating them with a belt, switch, or any other instrument or that she used any other form of corporal punishment to discipline these children. 3/ The Department's letter to Ms. Mitchell notified her that her foster care license renewal was denied. However, the counselor in the Department's Licensing Unit responsible for monitoring Ms. Mitchell's home testified that her license was revoked prior to its expiration and her foster home closed as a result of reports of child abuse. The counselor was present at the meeting in which the decision regarding Ms. Mitchell's license was made, and his testimony was uncontroverted.
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 charges against Mary L. Mitchell and reinstating her family foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a foster care facility should be approved or denied by Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for licensure of a foster home residential facility. She submitted her application to APD on October 16, 2013. The application requested licensure of the facility in Petitioner’s individual name. However, the proposed name of the facility was Comfortable Living, In Good Hands, to be located at 1309 Jules Court, in Eustis, Florida. Petitioner owns the property located at that address, which serves as her current residence. APD is the state agency which licenses foster care facilities, group home facilities, residential habilitation centers, and comprehensive transitional education programs, pursuant to section 393.067, Florida Statutes.1/ APD is charged with reviewing all applications and ensuring compliance with all requirements for licensure. On page 10 of the application, Petitioner signed the attestation statement and had her signature notarized. The attestation states: Under penalty of perjury, I hereby attest that all information submitted as part of this application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and by submitting same I am requesting a license to operate a facility in accordance with chapter 393, F.S. I also attest to such information on behalf of the above-named applicant for licensure or license-renewal. The application indicated that the individual responsible for on-site management and supervision of the facility was Wanda Strong. However, Ms. Strong failed to provide any of the information under the section which requires details on the education and experience of the person identified as the On-Site Manager. The application also included a series of questions concerning the applicant’s qualifications under Section V: Affidavit. Question 2 under this section asked the following: “Have you or anyone identified as a board member or party to ownership ever been identified as responsible for the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child, or the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult?” Respondent answered “no” to this question. Question 12 under Section V posed the following question: “Have you or anyone identified as a board member or a party to ownership, been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony?” The application also provided that if the response to this question was “yes,” the applicant was to provide “additional information regarding such situation(s)” on the lines provided. Petitioner responded to Question 12 in the affirmative, but failed to provide any details regarding her conviction. During APD’s review of Petitioner’s application, APD took steps to verify the accuracy of the information provided by Petitioner by conducting a search of DCF records on the Florida Safe Families Network. APD’s records search revealed a DCF report which indicated eight verified findings of neglect against Wanda Strong. Specifically, the report stated that on February 5, 2013, Wanda Strong was the caregiver at the Strong Family Day Care responsible for leaving eight children alone at the facility. Brandie Horne is a Child Protective Investigator employed by DCF. Ms. Horne conducted the investigation of the complaint against Strong Family Day Care, prepared the written report, and made the findings of neglect against Ms. Strong. In the course of her investigation, Ms. Horne conducted interviews of the children present at the Strong Family Day Care, and the mother of the children. Ms. Horne also interviewed Wanda Strong and Karlisa Woods, Ms. Strong’s daughter. Ms. Horne determined that on February 5, 2013, the mother of the children dropped them off at Karlisa Woods’ residence. Ms. Woods then left the children alone when she left to go to work. When Petitioner got off work from her night job, she arrived at Ms. Woods’ house at 7:45 a.m. Petitioner then left the younger children alone a second time, while she took the older children to school. When Ms. Horne interviewed Petitioner, Ms. Strong acknowledged that the mother dropped off her children with Ms. Woods at 6:40 a.m., and that Ms. Strong got off work from her job at 7:40 a.m. However, Ms. Strong denied that the children were left alone. When Ms. Horne interviewed Karlisa Woods, Ms. Woods claimed that she did not leave the children alone, but rather had all of the children accompany her in her vehicle, when she drove to pick up Ms. Strong from her work. Ms. Horne determined that Ms. Strong’s statement was inconsistent with Ms. Woods’ statement, conflicted with the statements of the children, and contradicted text messages received from the mother of the children. On March 13, 2013, Ms. Horne met with Petitioner to discuss the inconsistencies in her statements and the other evidence uncovered. At that time, Ms. Horne orally notified Petitioner that she was closing the investigation with verified findings of neglect. Ms. Strong told Ms. Horne that her contract with the Early Learning Coalition had been terminated as a result of this situation. Petitioner was fully informed and aware of the verified findings of neglect made by DCF Child Protective Investigator Horne. In addition, Ms. Horne distinctly recalled giving Petitioner a Notice of Rights and Responsibilities (Notice), which is routinely given to persons who are responsible for verified findings of abuse, neglect, or abandonment of children. The Notice states that a person receiving verified findings may request a copy of the investigative summary within 30 days after closure. The Notice also included the name and telephone number of the investigator. While at hearing Petitioner acknowledged receiving from Ms. Horne a document with the investigator’s name and telephone number, she could not recall what further information was included on the document. At hearing, Petitioner explained why she answered Question 2 in the negative, stating that she did not receive “paperwork” indicating a finding of neglect. However, Petitioner did acknowledge discussing the final report with Brandie Horne, including that the finding of inadequate supervision would identify her as the person responsible. Making reference to her notes made nearly contemporaneously with her conversation with Petitioner, Ms. Horne testified that on March 13, 2013, at 9:15 a.m., she orally informed Ms. Strong of the verified findings contained in her report. Petitioner’s response to Question 2 falsely represented or omitted a material fact in the license application. Petitioner also omitted material facts by failing to provide information pertaining to her education and experience as an onsite manager, and by failing to provide details pertaining to her criminal conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a Final Order denying the application filed by Petitioner for a license to operate a foster care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's foster care license should be revoked for violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-13.010.
Findings Of Fact DCFS is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring foster care parents. One of its duties is to investigate all allegations of abuse or neglect concerning children in foster care. Respondent is a 70-year-old female who was licensed on December 15, 2005, to be a "medical foster parent" so that she could care for children with special needs. The alleged victim in this matter, "Joy," had been placed with Respondent on June 22, 2005. At that time, Joy was nine years old, had Downs Syndrome, and was not communicative. Joy needed corrective lens, was not very coordinated, and was prone to clumsiness. She demanded a considerable amount of care to meet her needs. In September 2005, another child, Beth, began living at the house with Respondent and Joy. The relationship between Joy and Beth was somewhat strained. Respondent previously served as a guardian ad litem for at risk children. She has been a foster parent for approximately nine years. To become a medical foster parent, Respondent underwent training and then applied for licensure by DCFS. She was duly-licensed at the time of the incident in question. From the date of her licensure until the alleged incident, Respondent was considered a very good provider of care. There were no indications that she would be abusive to children in her care. When necessary, Respondent disciplined children in her care by withholding toys, placing them in time-out, and denying television/radio privileges. She did not utilize corporal punishment. From March 27 through 31, 2006, Joy and Beth attended a Spring Break Day Camp for Children with Disabilities. On Friday, March 31, 2006, Respondent picked up Joy and Beth from the day camp at Eau Gallie High School. On the way home, Respondent had to stop the car several times and attempt to re- secure Joy's car seat because Joy kept opening it. At one point, Respondent stopped in the parking lot of a local Wal- Mart, got out of the car, and went into the back seat. She proceeded to bang on the seat several times to keep it closed, but to no avail. She then used an elastic bungee cord to secure the seat. Two people in the Wal-Mart parking lot witnessed Respondent's actions. They perceived Respondent to be hitting the child and then use the bungee cord to tie the child's hands. Neither of the witnesses testified at final hearing, and their statements (included in the police report, Petitioner's Exhibit F) were not persuasive. It should be noted that despite Petitioner's statement in its Proposed Recommended Order that Respondent was allegedly striking the child with a bungee cord, the initial police report indicates that Respondent was allegedly using "hands, fist and feet" as the means of attack. The issue of a bungee cord was only brought up by the police after conducting its follow-up investigation some three or four days later. Respondent herself was the person who advised the investigation team about the existence of the bungee cord. Respondent vividly described the incident to have occurred as follows: After picking up Joy from school, Respondent became frustrated because Joy continued to open the car seat latch. Respondent stopped, attempted to bang the seat cover back down, and scolded Joy. This happened three times during the trip from school to home. On the third occasion, Respondent yelled at Joy and more forcefully banged on the seat cover. When it would not stay latched, Respondent took a bungee cord from the trunk and attempted to secure the seat. During this incident, Joy was upset and crying loudly. (Joy is extremely non-verbal and resorts to yelling and screaming when she is upset.) Respondent was also yelling and was upset. Certain individuals who were in the parking lot contacted the local police, and an investigation was commenced. A determination was made that the alleged perpetrator was a foster parent, so DCFS's child protection team was called. They immediately sent a team out to Respondent's home to examine the child and interview Respondent. Upon viewing the bruising on Joy's arms, the DCFS team decided to remove Joy and Beth from Respondent's home pending conclusion of the investigation. Joy was also taken to a local emergency room for medical evaluation, where pictures were taken of her bruises. The pictures, taken a day or two after the incident, do show bruising on Joy's arms and upper body. The bruises appear to be of different ages. Each of the bruises is fairly small, and some are identified by a nurse practitioner as "linear" in nature. In actuality, some of the small bruises are aligned in a row so that they could be called linear, but there are no pictures of bruising in a straight, unbroken line (as would appear if the child had been hit with a cord). Respondent has no history of abusing children in her care. She is held in high regard by the persons who monitor her care of medically needy children. She is one of few medical foster parents available in Brevard County to care for such children. Respondent kept a daily log of her activities with Joy in accordance with DCFS requirements. Those logs show several factors important to the present case: Bruises were noted on Joy's body the day prior to the incident. Respondent had dealt with the car seat problem earlier (e.g., on December 29, 2005). Joy would apparently bite and pinch herself and cause bruising. Joy needed glasses, but either intentionally or accidentally broke them very often, leaving her more likely to stumble and fall. The child's aggressive behavior often resulted in physical altercations with other children. The only person to testify at hearing who was present at the time of the alleged abuse was Respondent. Her description of the event was the most credible testimony presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services rescinding the revocation of Respondent's foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioners, K.W. and L.A.W., should be granted a license to be foster parents.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Petitioners are a married couple who applied to Respondent for a foster home license. Petitioners have three children. The background investigation conducted by Respondent revealed reports of incidents of domestic violence and battery involving Petitioners and their children. On October 4, 1999, police officers responded to Petitioners' home after receiving a report of domestic violence. The officer's investigation revealed that one of the Petitioners, L.A.W., had been battered by her son. The child had been involved in pastoral counseling for his aggressive behavior. Petitioner, K.W., advised the police officer that the child, W.A.W., would be moving from the residence because of his continuing inappropriate behavior. On April 7, 2002, another incident of domestic violence was reported and investigated. On this occasion, the two younger children of Petitioners were involved in an altercation that resulted in Petitioner, K.W., being rendered unconscious by a blow to the head with an object delivered by one of the children, C.W. C.W. was arrested for aggravated battery. In February 2003, Petitioners desired to keep a six- month-old, unrelated child in their home. The child was placed in the home contingent on C.W.'s moving from the home and not residing in the home. Petitioners agreed to this contingency of placement, and the child was placed in Petitioners' home. On November 5, 2003, Petitioners applied to be licensed as foster parents. Ten days after Petitioners applied to be licensed, another incident of domestic violence occurred. On November 15, 2003, two of Petitioners' adult children got into a fistfight which resulted in one having a broken nose. As a result, W.A.W. was arrested. At the time of the altercation, W.A.W., 21 years old and the oldest child who had moved out at an earlier time as a result of his behavior, was residing at Petitioners' residence. Although the police report indicates that the incident occurred at Petitioners' residence, the testimony indicated that it occurred "down the street." All three of Petitioners' children continue to reside locally and frequent their parents' home. Petitioners are highly recommended by a representative of The Children's Home Society, a Guardian ad Litem, and their pastor. Respondent has the responsibility of placing foster children in a safe setting. But for the behavior of their children, Petitioners would qualify for licensure. As long as Petitioners' children frequent Petitioners' residence, any child placed in that residence is at risk. As a result, Petitioners are not qualified to be licensed as foster parents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the foster care license application of Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Thompson, Esquire Thomas Thompson, P.A. 100 South Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida 32780 Richard Cato, Esquire Department of children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
