The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner meets the education and experience requirements for licensure as Executive Director or for appointment to the Board of Directors of an adoption agency in Florida as outlined in Rule 10M- 24, F.A.C..
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was the state agency responsible for the licensing of adoption agencies in Florida and for the certification of the director and governing body members for such agencies. Petitioner was the founder and President of the A Bond Of Love Adoption Agency, Inc.. She was not on the Board of Directors. Petitioner has been a licensed attorney at law in Florida for approximately 10.5 years and has specialized in handling the adoption of children for approximately 8 years. For at least 5 of those years, she has served as an intermediary, an individual thoroughly familiar with the law of and problems related to the adoption process and who serves as, in essence, a facilitator for the parties. Petitioner founded A Bond Of Love Adoption Agency, Inc. as a nonprofit corporation in Florida to assist in the adoption process and as President and attorney for the corporation, has developed a pool of personnel at the agency to provide the resources for the adoption process in the best possible manner. In her activity as Intermediary, Petitioner first meets with the birth parents or the adoptive parents, whichever she represents initially, to determine her clients' needs. It is her practice not only to explain the legal issues involved, but also to determine the client's emotional and service needs and to line up the appropriate professional or lay sources that client might need. In the event her client is the birth parent, she works not only with that individual and the father, but also with the birth mother's extended family to alleviate the grieving process that all will feel at some point in the process. All potential issues are identified and she either counsels with the family herself or puts them in contact with the right other source to help. Petitioner's practice differs radically from the normal intermediary practice since she delves much more deeply into non- legal impacts and issues of the adoption process. She has implemented procedures of communication, where appropriate, to insure the feedback of information from both the birth and adoptive parents which alleviates the anxiety of both and facilitates the healing process in the birth parents who have given up their child. It also supports the process of acceptance by the family of the adoptive child and assists in planning for the answer of future questions by the child about the adoption process. In the course of her practice, she has also handled the adoption of handicapped, biracial, and other children who are difficult to adopt and has facilitated resolution of the additional emotional and financial (medical care costs) relevant to that category of child. Her experience in the human services field, as a result of her frequent work arrangements with the Department, enables her to facilitate the resolution of these problems so that the services are provided and the adoption can proceed. Petitioner is recognized as an expert in the field of adoption law and practice, having done over 400 adoptions. She serves on the advisory board for the Department's agency dealing with mixed racial adoptions; she is a volunteer worker with the guardian ad litem program, the alternative abortion program, and the schools of Sarasota County; she is active and has held leadership positions in the adoption subcommittees of both the Florida and American Bar Associations; is a speaker at numerous legal and other relevant organizations; and has widely published in the field. The current Executive Director of A Bond of Love Adoption Agency, Ms. Martin, has over 17 years experience as a social worker in various specialties, including adoptions. Prior to assuming her current position, she worked for 1.5 years with the Children's Home Society, an adoption agency, in St. Petersburg. While there she worked under an executive director whose job was to raise funds, supervise personnel and the expenditure of funds and resources. As Executive Director for A Bond Of Love, Ms. Martin supervises two adoption counselors and serves in that capacity herself. She also works with out of state adoptions and conducts educational seminars for adoptive couples. From time to time, when social workers were not available to do this work and the social assessment so requires, Ms. Stockham has been called upon to do those reports and they have been at the very least equal in quality and substance to those done by the full time social workers. She has done between 3 and 5 assessments during the current year. The service provided by the Petitioner agency is much broader in scope than that provided by Martin's previous agency, the Children's Home Society. The training she got for this extra work came from Ms. Stockham. She has attended seminars in adoption-related subjects in other areas of the country, and the training she has been given by Ms. Stockham is totally consistent with the information given in those sessions, proving to her that Stockham knows here business. The agency has presented a series of 4.5 hour seminars on adoptions considerations over the years. The majority of these, which are much more in depth than those given by the Children's Home Society, were given by Ms. Stockham who also provides the same service to private adoption clients. Ms. Martin feels that Stockham's experience in the adoptive process, not only as an attorney but also as a counselor, is definitely similar to the human services duties a human services worker provides. She is totally satisfied that Ms. Stockham could do a creditable job in the position of Executive Director of the agency. Ms. Johnson also works for the agency, having had 6 years' experience with the Department as an adoption counselor. In that capacity, over the years she worked repeatedly with the Ms. Stockham and is intimately familiar with her work. Stockham has given her numerous verbal assessments. In each of those cases, she dealt delicately and sensitively with both the birth and adoptive parents and the social and legal matters as well. Ms. Stockham is the best she has ever seen in the adoption process and is very innovative. Ms. Johnson has also observed Ms. Stockham working in seminars and support groups which Stockham helped get started. In these seminars, she provides training for both birth and adoptive parents and does extremely well in handling these sensitive situations. Ms. Stockham is the adoptive parent of two biracial parents and Ms. Johnson did the home assessment of Ms. Stockham's home for the second adoption. She found her to be very knowledgeable and sensitive to the needs of biracial adoptions. She has also had numerous opportunities to review assessments done by Ms. Stockham and has found them to be the equivalent of and more in depth than those done by Department social workers. Over the years, all of the the adoption community professionals have benefited from Petitioner Stockham's expertise in the area. There is no question that Ms. Stockham is a highly skilled and dedicated practitioner in the area of adoption law and her expertise and innovativeness have contributed greatly to the success of the adoption process in Sarasota County. Several practitioners and judges have so indicated in commendatory letters to the Department in support of her application, and it is so found. Ms. Stockham also urges that the Department has followed an inconsistent policy toward the approval of attorneys as Executive Directors of adoption agencies in other parts of the state. In support of this position, she has offered the director resumes and licenses for child placement agencies headed by lawyers. It is found that licensure as an attorney at law in this state is not a disqualification for service as an executive director of such an agency. However, licensure as an attorney is not, per se, proof of possession of the educational and experience requirements set down by the Department's rule. Here, the Department, in its letter of denial which prompted Ms. Stockham's request for hearing, accepted her degree in psychology as meeting the "related field" criterion, but denied the application on the basis of her lack of experience in "human service or child welfare programs." Ms. Stockham's testimony and that of Ms. Martin and Ms. Johnson as to the nature of her work with adoptive and birth parents, aliunde the technical and legal requirements of the adoptive process, uncontradicted by Respondent, shows Stockham's experience falls well within the prescribed arena. Even disregarding the first several years of her practice, when she was new to the field, it is clear that for the past four or five years, her experience qualifies as human service or child welfare experience.
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 approving Petitioner Susan Stockham's application for licensure as Executive Director of the A Bond of Love Adoption Agency, Inc., but denying her application and that of any other paid employee to serve on the agency's Board of Directors. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1993. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 27th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan L. Stockhan, Esquire 2520 South Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 34239 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire DHRS, District 8 8695 College Parkway, Suite 217 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. 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 select the Petitioners as the adoptive parents of M. C.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Rosa and Edwin Wise, live in Bradenton, Florida. They have been married since 1986. They have a strong and sharing marriage relationship; each considers the other not only spouse but best friend. They have been HRS-licensed foster parents since approximately 1992. Both are in good health. The Wises have experience foster-parenting children with "special needs." For approximately 18 months to two years, they were the foster parents of two African-American siblings. The older boy was nine months old when the Wises became his foster parents; the younger girl was just three months old when the Wises became her foster parents. The girl was cocaine-dependent at birth and had developmental delays as a result. Happily, not only were the Wises very successful foster parents for the children but the family was able to be reunified successfully. Today, some two years after reunification, the Wises continue to have a wonderful relationship with the children and their mother, and children's mother continues to be grateful to the Wises for what they have done and continue to do for her and her children. Since the Wises had notified HRS that they would be happy to foster parent one or two "special needs" children again, HRS contacted them in early July, 1995, to ask if they would be foster parents for a high risk, cocaine-dependent African- American newborn girl, M. C. The Wises readily agreed. Rosa went to see the infant in the hospital the next day, and they continued to visit daily during the infant's week-long hospital stay. They began acting as the child's foster parents as soon as the baby was discharged from the hospital. A warm and loving relationship quickly blossomed between the Wises and the infant, and the Wises soon expressed a desire to adopt the child if parental rights were terminated-- unfortunately, a probable outcome in this case. (The infant's mother was addicted to cocaine, had abandoned the child at the hospital after birth, and gave no indication of having any desire or ability to mother the child.) M. C. had older siblings, but all but one of them were in the full-time care and custody of family members who were unable to care for any more full-time. One brother was in the care and custody of another foster parent, who had expressed a desire to adopt him. It was agreed between HRS and the two sets of foster parents that it was not especially desirable for the infant and her brother to be adopted as a sibling group. Due to alleged "confidential information pertaining to another child," HRS refused to disclose to the Petitioners the entire contents of the Referral for Permanency Staffing form signed by the Wises on August 9, 1995, and the Petitioners did not further pursue disclosure of the information. But the evidence is clear that the Wises consistently expressed to HRS their desire to adopt M. C. (and, if necessary, her brother) if parental rights were terminated. HRS staff urged them to be patient in awaiting termination of parental rights, a prerequisite to initiation of the adoption process. A staffing conference was held on August 8, 1995, in the matter of the children. Participating were the Wises, their foster care counselor, the adoption counselor, the adoption counselor's acting supervisor, the program specialist, and others. The evidence was that, as a result of the staffing conference, the staffing committee approved a plan to expedite termination of parental rights. The committee specified the need for a "complete developmental evaluation" by August 25, 1995. The evidence was not clear what a "complete developmental evaluation" entails, or whether one was completed. No HRS employee who would have knowledge of exactly how HRS initially went about exploring the suitability of the Wises to adopt M. C. was available to testify at final hearing, and the Petitioners were not able to prove those details. However, the evidence was clear that, by approximately September 9, 1995, the program specialist involved in the matter expressed to the Wises his "concerns" about the Wises. When they asked him what the concerns were, he answered vaguely that they were "cultural." When pressed, he declined to be more specific but instead referred the Wises to the adoption counselor. The Wises suspected that the "concern" was that the Wises are Americans of European ancestry. HRS did have available at final hearing its "One Church One Child Coordinator," 1/ who testified that in approximately late September or early October, 1995 (she also could not specify when, and the Petitioners could not prove exactly when), she received a telephone contact from within HRS asking her for the names and home studies of qualified African-American prospective adoptive parents who might be interested in adopting M. C. The HRS One Church One Child Coordinator reviewed the information available to her and provided several names and home studies to the adoption counselor working on the M. C. adoption and the adoption counselor's acting supervisor. From the names and home studies, the three HRS workers chose three prospective adoptive parents for consideration along with the Wises. On or about October 11, 1995, HRS's adoption and related services (ARS) Children and Family (C&F) senior counselor and supervisor wrote the program specialist an Inter-Office Memorandum recommending that the Petitioners "be approved for adoption for one or two children" and noting that they "indicated, they would like to have a sibling group of two of any race." 2/ In addition, by this time bonds had formed between M. C. and the Wises that were as strong as any a three to four month old could have. Despite the October 11, 1995, memo, an HRS meeting was held some time before the end of October, 1995 (the HRS witness again could not specify the date), among the One Church One Child Coordinator, the adoption counselor, the adoption counselor's acting supervisor, an operation program administrator, a district program manager, an HRS attorney and perhaps others for the purpose of selecting adoptive parents for M. C. from among four sets of prospective adoptive parents--the Wises and the three chosen from among the One Church One Child names and home studies. On or about October 31, 1995, Rosa Wise was notified by telephone that HRS had chosen one of the others, a single African-American female, to adopt M. C. The Wises were required to allow the person chosen to have overnight visitation with the child. There is no evidence as to whether the HRS staff decision was reviewed by the HRS district administrator,3 but HRS staff notified the Wises on November 15, 1995, that HRS had chosen one of the others to adopt M. C. Staff also notified the Wises that the adoptive parent selected by HRS staff was supposed to have overnight visitation from November 17-20 and again from November 22-27, 1995, with placement to be made the next day. By letter from HRS's attorney dated November 17, 1995, the Wises and their attorney were given notice "of HRS' intention to exercise final adoptive placement in favor of another family." The child was not returned to the Wises on November 21, 1995, as planned.4 Then, instead of having the child returned to the Wises on November 28, 1995, the parties went before the circuit judge in the dependency case involving M. C., and the judge entered an order authorizing the child to remain in the care and custody of the prospective adoptive parent chosen by HRS pending the resolution of Section 120.57 administrative proceedings. The Wises did not believe that HRS would allow them visitation or other contact with M. C. during the pendency of these proceedings, and they did not pursue it. They have not seen the child since approximately November 16, 1995. The evidence indicated that, by the time of the final hearing, M. C. had grown at least as attached to her new foster mother as she was to the Wises. Based on the evidence, there is no reason not to believe that the Wises would have been, and still would be, warm and loving parents who would provide M. C. with a home in which the child would thrive. They clearly were "suitable" adoptive parents. HRS did not allow the adoption to proceed only because of "cultural concerns"--i.e., the Wises were not African- American. It was felt by HRS staff--in particular, the program specialist--that these "cultural concerns" could override any foster parent preference in favor of the Wises and that inquiry should be made as to whether there were African-American prospective adoptive parents who could adopt M. C. After the African-American prospective adoptive parents entered the picture, HRS staff decided what it considered to be the best interest of the child, taking into account the "cultural" considerations. Essentially, as between the Wises and the person ultimately chosen to be the adoptive parent, HRS staff decided that the latter would be better able to "maintain the child's culture and give the child emotional support," although the Wises clearly were committed to value, respect, appreciate, and educate the child regarding her racial and ethnic background and to permit the child the opportunity to know and appreciate her ethnic and racial heritage. On balance, the other factors cited by HRS actually were neutral at best; some seemed bogus.5 On the evidence presented at final hearing, it is difficult to say whether HRS's choice against the Wises was, on balance, against the best interest of the child. There were factors in favor of both the Wises and in favor of the person chosen by HRS. Perhaps, given HRS's rules, the choice HRS made at that time was wrong. However, the Wises clearly were unable to prove that, at this time, it is in the best interest of the child to require her to be adopted by the Wises instead of the foster mother she has had for the past seven to eight months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a final order denying the Petitioners' request to be selected as the adoptive parents of M. C. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of August, 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 this 15th day of August, 1996.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioners' foster home license should be denied on the basis that the abuse registry examined during the re-licensure process disclosed a verified finding of abandonment of a child, recorded against the Petitioners as perpetrators, under authority of Section 409.175(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners were licensed as a foster home and sometime in the latter part of 1999, their licensure came due for renewal. They were advised by a denial letter dated October 8, 1999, from the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), that their home would not be re-licensed as a foster home. The initial agency decision to this effect was because the Petitioners, or at least Mr. Barnes, had an entry on the Department's abuse registry indicating a verified finding of abandonment against the Petitioners. The finding of abandonment involved the Petitioners' adopted son, D.B., being left at the office of the Department's foster care staff. Apparently the Barnes had had a great deal of trouble with D.B.'s behavior and had been unable to constructively discipline him and improve his behavior. This apparently made them very frustrated such that on March 26, 1999, Mr. Barnes called the Department regarding D.B., to inform the Department that they were simply unable to handle the child. Mr. Barnes talked to James Grant, supervisor of the foster care unit in the Department's Ocala office, and a witness for the Department in this case. Mr. Grant offered to provide assistance to the family to help resolve the issues between the Petitioners and their child. That offer of assistance was refused, however. Later that day, Mr. Barnes took D.B. to the Ocala offices of the Department's foster care unit and apparently left him sitting in the lobby of the building which houses the foster care staff. Mr. Barnes did not speak to Mr. Grant or anyone else in a responsible position before leaving the building and permanently abandoning the child. He only informed the receptionist that he was leaving the child. Because of the Petitioners' actions in leaving the child sitting in the lobby, a call was placed to the abuse hotline that same day. Joanne Hunter was assigned as the investigator of the abuse report. According to the final report of the investigation that was admitted into evidence, the case was closed with a verified indication of abandonment and neglect, the result of D.B. being abandoned in the Department's lobby. On March 27, 1999, a shelter hearing was held before a circuit judge and D.B. was placed in the custody of the Department due to the Petitioner's act of abandonment at the Department's office. Subsequently, the child was adjudicated dependent and placed in a long-term foster care placement. The child remained in that foster care placement at the time of the instant hearing. Certified copies of the judge's shelter order and the order of adjudication and disposition have been entered into evidence in this case. Prior to their adoption by the Petitioners, D.B. and his two siblings had been abused and neglected by their natural parents. They had, therefore, been placed in foster care by the Department. D.B.'s natural parents' parental rights had been terminated because of the uncorrected and continuing abuse and neglect of D.B. and his two siblings. The Petitioners had adopted D.B. and his two siblings. Children who have been abused and neglected or abandoned by their parents are especially vulnerable and require the greatest degree of stability in their home life that is possible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying the re-licensure of the Petitioners as a licensed family foster home. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Billie and Willie Mae Barnes 15606 Southwest 27th Avenue Road Ocala, Florida 34473 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 43785 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether level 2 screening pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes (2003), mandates denial of an application of a potential foster parent who has a prior DUI-manslaughter conviction.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifying in person and the documentary materials received in evidence, official recognition granted, evidentiary rulings during the final hearing, and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: Petitioner, D.S., applied to become licensed as a foster parent with the Department on July 11, 2003. However, Petitioner is not seeking nor requesting that the Department assign foster children to his home, should his application be granted. Petitioner is seeking to become the foster parent of his nephew, C.N.L., a 16-year-old male. After the death of his mother, more than five years ago, C.N.L. was moved in with Petitioner who has continuously provided shelter, supervision, care, and support for his nephew. Petitioner is now seeking to become the foster parent of his nephew because C.N.L. is the age (16) where "authority of a parent or guardian" will be necessarily required in his future. Other than Petitioner, C.N.L. has no other known relatives and has not been adjudicated or declared a dependent child pursuant to Section 39.507, Florida Statutes (2003). There is no other pending action by the Department regarding this minor child except the issue under consideration in this cause. The Family Profile form submitted by Petitioner detailed his current family information. Therein, Petitioner listed himself, white male, divorced, as prospective parent 1, and Daniel Walrad, white male, single, as prospective parent 2. Petitioner included therein, and acknowledged at the hearing, that as the result of one automobile accident that occurred on December 17, 1989, of which Petitioner was the driver, the passenger in the vehicle died. As a result, Petitioner was found guilty and convicted of a felony. Law enforcement did not arrest Petitioner at the time of this accident but charged Petitioner with felony DUI-manslaughter. With private counsel, Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to the charge of "homicide"-negligent vehicle manslaughter, Section 316.193, Florida Statutes (1989). The Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida, accepted the plea of Petitioner, entered an adjudication of guilt, and convicted Petitioner on the charge. The Court sentenced Petitioner to and he successfully completed five years of probation and two years of community control. Petitioner, as a demonstration of his remorse and rehabilitation, has not drunk alcohol since the accident 13 years ago. As evidence of his commitment to caring for his nephew, Petitioner is currently attending Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting (MAPP) classes that are required for potential foster parents. Petitioner, with the understanding that C.N.L. has not been declared a "depending child" and is, therefore, not registered in the Department's system as a dependent child, concluded that he is free to and would, should the Department deny his foster parent application, move his current family, including C.N.L., to the State of New Hampshire. The above Findings of Fact are undisputed by either party to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order denying the application of Petitioner, D.S., to be licensed as a foster parent. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 17th day of December, 2003.
The Issue The parties stipulated that a concise statement of the nature of the controversy is: "Petitioner revoked Respondent's license to operate as a child-placing agency under 409.175, Fla. Stat." The issues in the case are delineated with specificity in the Administrative Complaint dated February 20, 2006. Petitioner alleges that Respondent's license is revoked for the following reasons: Failure to properly close the agency as required by F.A.C. 65C-15.035. Repeated failure to provide the Department with the agency's 2004 financial audit as required by F.A.C. 65C-15.010 and failure to provide the Department with the agency's 2005 financial audit; Multiple code violations documented on February 10, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on September 14, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on October 18, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on January 19, 2006 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on February 17, 2006 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Entering into contracts with a prospective adoptive parent for the placement and adoption of a child, taking the prospective adoptive parent's money and not placing a child in their home for adoption, and, thereafter failing to return money paid for fees, costs and expenses advanced by the prospective adoptive parent which were refundable. In short, the agency charged the prospective adoptive parent for fees, costs and expenses, and, when the agency failed to deliver on the contract it did not return the advanced money required to be refunded. This is in violation of sections 63.097 and/or 409.175, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. 65C-15.010; Entering into contracts with a prospective adoptive parent for the placement and adoption of a child, taking the prospective adoptive parent's money, placing a child in their home for adoption, and, thereafter failing to return money advanced to pay for fees, costs and expenses associated with the adoption which were not expended. In short, the agency charged the prospective adoptive parent for fees, costs and expenses, and, when the funds were not actually needed to cover the allowable fees, costs or expenses the agency failed return the advanced money. This is in violation of sections 63.097 and/or 409.175, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. 65C-15.010. In its response to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Homecoming Adoptions, Inc., has denied each of the nine listed reasons for Petitioner's decision to revoke its license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Florida non-profit corporation, doing business in Orlando, Florida. It is co-owned by Kurt Alexander and Kendall Rigdon; both are officers of the corporation and are attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. On March 2, 2005, Petitioner issued a Certificate of License to Respondent to operate a child-placing agency. The license was to continue in force for one year from the date of issue unless renewed, withdrawn or revoked for cause. On February 15, 2006, Kurt Alexander advised Petitioner on behalf of Respondent that "we are withdrawing our application for licensure renewal at this time." During relevant times, to wit, March 2, 2005, to February 15, 2006, Respondent entered into contracts (titled "adoptive agency agreement") with individuals seeking to adopt children wherein Respondent undertook to "assist the Adoptive Parent in commencing and completing the adoption." The contracts contemplate the Adoptive Parent traveling "to the foreign country to complete the adoption process and accept physical custody of the child." Evidence was offered that Respondent assisted with adoptions which took place in Russia, China, Guatemala, El Salvador, and other countries. In each instance, the formality of the adoption was effected by individuals or agencies located in the foreign country. Although a licensed child-placing agency, Respondent had never placed a child for adoption within or without the State of Florida. Respondent became a licensed child-placing agency in an abundance of caution in the event it had to undertake a Florida adoption. Respondent never had physical custody of any child on either a temporary or permanent basis. On February 17, 2006, Kurt Alexander again advised Petitioner that Respondent "does not wish to renew or retain its license as a child-placing agency in Florida." He further advised that [I]n an abundance of caution and in compliance with 65C-15.035, Homecoming will do the following Transfer all children to the Dept. or another licensed child placement agency. There are none. Transfer responsibility for all children in temporary placement, etc. There are none. Transfer services to all other clients. Will do. On or about February 17, 2006, all active and closed files of Respondent, the licensed child-placing agency, were transferred to the law firm of Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP. Thereafter, Kurt Alexander, in his capacity as an attorney with that firm, requested that Petitioner refrain from examining the files that had previously been the property of Respondent, as they were now law firm property and "confidential." On September 14, 2005; October 18, 2005; January 19, 2006; and February 17, 2006, Petitioner conducted annual and complaint inspections of Respondent's files. Employee personnel files lacked applications, references, local/FDLE/FBI criminal background checks, degree verifications, and other required information. Some adoption files lacked completed home studies, character references, background studies, criminal background checks, and abuse registry checks. In addition, a required financial audit was not available. Respondent's executive director was terminated in August 2005; Petitioner was not notified of his termination. No evidence was offered by Petitioner regarding the allegations of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking the license of Respondent, Homecoming Adoptions, Inc., effective February 20, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2006, 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 6th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Taylor, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 T. Shane DeBoard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1114 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Copeland, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Luci D. Hadi, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a license as a family foster home.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating family foster homes. See § 409.016, Fla. Stat. and § 409.175, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is an applicant for a family foster home license. In accordance with applicable law governing the licensing of family foster homes, Petitioner attended an orientation conducted by a family services counselor; completed a screening questionnaire; and completed a required program known as Model Approach for Parenting (MAPP). MAPP's purpose is to ensure that individuals who seek to be foster parents have the personal and financial wherewithal to handle the challenges of foster-parenting, and to work effectively with Respondent. During the MAPP process, applicants receive classroom instruction, and submit to an exhaustive investigation into and evaluation of their background. An applicant must furnish truthful and complete information concerning personal and employment history. Detailed information concerning the applicant's financial condition is likewise required. Respondent is required to verify information provided by an applicant during the MAPP process to determine the personal and financial stability of the applicant, as well the applicant's honesty, or lack thereof. In this case, Respondent's attempts to verify information provided by Petitioner as she progressed through the MAPP process revealed that she had omitted significant facts regarding her personal history and financial condition, and had knowingly misrepresented others. One such misrepresentation was that her mother was dead. In fact, her mother was alive, though estranged from Petitioner. This misrepresentation demonstrates that at least one of her significant personal relationships is troubled and unstable to the point where Petitioner denies its existence entirely. Petitioner misrepresented that she lived in North Carolina for five years prior to relocating to Florida in 2004. In fact, Petitioner lived in Florida as far back as 1999. She lived in Palm Beach County, Florida since 2002. Final judgments for eviction were entered against Petitioner in Palm Beach County on August 6, 2002, and on December 14, 2004. Applicants are required to inform Respondent of judgments rendered against them, but Petitioner failed to disclose the evictions on her application. Petitioner falsely represented on her application that her monthly rent was $900. In fact, her monthly rent was $1750. Employment history provided by Petitioner on her application could not be confirmed by Respondent. At hearing, Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence regarding her past or current employment. Petitioner falsely represented on her application that she had a working automobile. In fact, Petitioner's automobile had been repossessed. Applicants are required to have sufficient household funds available to cover basic living expenses for a foster child in their care for a four to six week period before a board payment would be provided by Respondent. Petitioner misrepresented to Respondent that she has sufficient funds available for that purpose. In fact, she does not. Petitioner has failed to provide any credible explanation for any of the foregoing misrepresentations and omissions. It is specifically determined that as to each of the foregoing misrepresentations and omissions, Petitioner deliberately misrepresented or withheld information she knew she was required to provide.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for a family foster home license be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Marva M. Lewis Post Office Box 530686 West Palm Beach, Florida 33422 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Copelan, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Luci D. Hadi, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the petitioner's request to be an adoptive or foster parent should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing family foster homes pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and for establishing minimum standards which must be met by prospective adoptive parents, pursuant to section 63.022, Florida Statutes. In September 1995, Ms. McNeal telephoned the Adoption Information Center at its advertised toll-free number, 1-800-96Adopt, to obtain information about adopting a child. She was sent a packet of materials, which included a section entitled "Adoption and the African-American Child." The Adoption Information Center also suggested she contact One Church, One Child of Florida for further information. Ms. McNeal was encouraged about her chances to adopt an African- American child when she read in the materials provided to her by the Adoption Information Center that some agencies will accept applicants for adoption who are single and who receive public assistance. Ms. McNeal is the single mother of a twelve-year-old daughter and has been on public assistance for the past two years. Ms. McNeal called One Church, One Child and told the representative that she wanted to become a foster or adoptive parent. This request was passed from One Church, One Child to Priscilla Knight, a Family Support Worker with the Department, who acts as liaison between the Department and One Church, One Child. Ms. Knight is a member of a unit within the Department responsible for recruiting and training prospective foster and adoptive parents. When she is contacted by a person who is interested in becoming a foster or adoptive parent, she invites them to an orientation meeting where more detailed information is provided. If the person is still interested, an initial visit will be made to the home of the prospective foster or adoptive parents, and, if the results of the initial visit are satisfactory, the prospective foster or adoptive parents are referred to the required Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting ("MAPP") training. This procedure was followed in evaluating Ms. McNeal's request. The family income is one of the factors the Department looks at to evaluate the suitability of persons to become foster or adoptive parents. Ms. McNeal is not employed, and her income consists of $50.00 per month in child support for her twelve-year-old daughter and $241.00 per month in Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments. She also receives $201.00 per month in food stamps. Her monthly expenses consist of $19.00 per month for rent in government subsidized housing, $40.00 per month for electrical service, $30.00 per month for telephone service, and $300.00 per month for food, for a total of $389.00. This leaves $103.00 per month for all other expenses she and her daughter incur. Ms. McNeal's income is barely sufficient to provide for her and her daughter's stability and security, and it would not be sufficient to meet the needs of the family should she receive a foster or adoptive child.
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 denying the request of Tara McNeal to be accepted as a foster or adoptive parent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO, 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 30th day of May 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a family foster home license should be granted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department")?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner previously served as a foster parent from late 1990 until November of the following year. The foster children entrusted to her care during this period of time were four preadolescent sisters, Z.C., A.C., F.C. and W.C., who are now five, seven, nine, and eleven years of age, respectively. Before assuming her responsibilities as a foster parent, Petitioner was provided with, among other things, two acknowledgment forms, which she subsequently signed and returned to the Department. One of the forms related to screening requirements and provided as follows: I, (We) , foster parent(s), understand that anyone who resides in my foster home and is over the age of 18, must be fully screened according to federal requirements. I, (We), understand that screening requirements also apply to anyone I, (We) might use as a baby-sitter. I understand that failure to have applicable persons screened may result in the revocation of my foster home license. I, (We) further understand that any changes in my (our) household composition must be reported to HRS. Screening Requirements Fingerprinting 3 personal references Employer reference Consent form Police clearance Abuse Registry clearance Affidavit of Good Moral Character Discipline Statement FOSTER MOTHER DATE FOSTER FATHER DATE The other form concerned disciplinary measures. It provided as follows: FOSTER PARENT(S): You are aware that for some time, Health and Rehabilitative Services has discouraged the use of physical punishment, including spanking, for children in foster care. Now, however, we have an Administrative Rule statewide which prohibits foster parents from using corporal punishment on foster children. The section of administrative Rule 10M-6; which deals with discipline, is reproduced in the following paragraph: "Licensing and relicensing procedure developed by the Department shall include the presentation of written foster care disciplinary policies to applicants and licensed foster parents to ensure that appropriate nonabusive disciplinary practices are used in dealing with foster children's behavior. Discipline is a training process through which the foster child develops self- control, self-reliance and orderly conduct necessary for them to assume responsibilities, make daily living decisions and live according to accepted levels of social behaviors. The purpose of discipline is education and rational. It focuses on deterring unacceptable behavior by encouraging the child to develop internal controls. Foster Parents are expected to define rules which establish limits and types of acceptable behavior. These rules must be clearly explained to each child and applied equally to all children. Prohibited disciplinary practices include group punishments for misbehavior of individuals; withholding of meals, mail or family visits; hitting a child with an object; spanking a child; physical, sexual, emotional and verbal abuse; humiliating or degrading punishment which subjects the child to ridicule; being placed in a locked room; and delegation of authority for punishment to other children or persons not known to the child. The use of isolation shall be used only for short periods of time as a therapeutic measure when a child's behavior is temporarily out of control. Such periods of isolation shall be observed and supervised by the foster parent to ensure the safety of the child." If you have problems with this new rule, please discuss this with your licensing counselor who will be able to help you work out alternative disciplinary techniques for each child, according to his/her needs. My signature acknowledges that I have read this statement, that I understand the content, and agree to abide by it. FOSTER PARENT DATE FOSTER PARENT DATE During a ten-week training course that she attended prior to becoming a foster parent, Petitioner was further advised of the Department's prohibition against the use of corporal punishment as a means of disciplining foster children. Notwithstanding her awareness of this prohibition, on various occasions during the period of time that she was providing foster care, Petitioner hit her foster children with a belt-like instrument to punish them for their misconduct. On a regular basis, Petitioner had her cousin, Sharon Walker, baby-sit for the children. Walker was not licensed to provide foster care. Furthermore, Walker had not been screened by the Department to determine her fitness to serve as a caretaker for foster children, and Petitioner made no effort to initiate the screening process. Walker was not compensated for her baby-sitting services, although Petitioner did provide her with food and money for the children. Walker baby-sat for the children approximately 100 hours per month. There were times that she had them under her care and supervision for an entire weekend. One such weekend was the weekend of November 16 and 17, 1991. On Tuesday, November 19, 1991, the Department received a report from the nursery school that Z.C. attended that Z.C. had come to school with "a number of unexplained injuries this year," including the "bruises on her leg and on her buttocks" that were observed by the reporter that day. The reporter indicated that she suspected that Z.C. was "being abused." Upon receiving the report, the Department removed Z.C. and her three sisters from Petitioner's home and commenced an investigation of the matter. Beverly Johnson Stevens, a child protective services investigator with the Department, was assigned the investigation. As part of her investigation, Stevens made arrangements for Z.C. and her sisters to be given complete physical examinations at the Broward County Sexual Assault Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Center"). Z.C. and A.C. were examined at the Center on November 20, 1991. Their older sisters were examined at the Center six days later. Z.C.'s and A.C.'s examinations revealed that they had bruises and "fresh" linear marks (i.e., linear marks no more than five days old) on their bodies. F.C. and W.C., it was discovered, had linear marks on their bodies as well, but these marks were not "fresh." Based upon the results of the examinations, as well as the interviews she had conducted with the four children, Stevens determined that the case should be closed as "proposed confirmed." Z.C., A.C., F.C. and W.C. were named as the alleged victims in Stevens' "proposed confirmed" report of abuse. Petitioner and Walker were named as the alleged perpetrators in the report. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing on the proposed classification of the report. The case was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and docketed as DOAH Case No. 92-5694C. On January 21, 1993, before any administrative hearing had been held, the Department and Petitioner entered into a settlement agreement, which provided as follows: COMES NOW, the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, by and through its undersigned counsel, WILLIE LAWSON, and the Respondent F.D.A., jointly stipulate to the following final settlement of the instant cause: Respondent's child abuse report shall be amended to read "Closed Without Classification." The Respondent's child abuse report of "proposed confirmed," shall be deleted and the Respondent, F.D.A., shall be removed from the child abuse registry. The Respondent, F.D.A., individually and on behalf of the minor children, hereby releases the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services from any claims, demands, actions, judgments and executions which F.D.A. ever had or now has against the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services arising out of the events which gave rise to this cause of action or any event prior to this date. In accordance with the settlement agreement, the Department filed the following Notice of Dismissal in DOAH Case No. 92-5694C: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services hereby gives notice of its decision to abandon the prosecution of this cause. The report of abuse and/or neglect is closed without classification. The basis for this dismissal is that a settlement has resolved all disputed issues. Following the Department's reclassification of the report, Petitioner made the request, which is the subject of the instant case, that she be allowed "to re-open [her] foster home."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a license to operate a family foster home. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of February, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 February, 1994.
