The Issue The determinative issue in this cause is whether Petitioners "abused" and "neglected" foster children in their care, as those terms are defined in Sections 39.01(2) and 39.01(45), Florida Statutes (2000). As a result of the alleged abusive neglect, two subsequent issues are raised: (1) whether Petitioners' foster home license should be revoked for the reasons as stated in the Administrative Complaint dated July 20, 2001; and (2) whether Respondent's denial of Petitioners' requests to adopt the "M" sibling and to adopt the "T/S" sibling foster children, based primarily upon the allegations in the Administrative Compliant dated July 20, 2001, as explained in a denial letter dated January 18, 2002, was appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying in person and by taped interviews, the documentary materials received in evidence, stipulations by the parties, evidentiary rulings during the final hearing, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are found. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for receiving and approving applications for foster care licenses and for monitoring, regulating, and if necessary, suspending or revoking foster parent licenses pursuant to Section 409.175, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for receiving, evaluating, approving or denying applications for adoption of foster children pursuant to Section 63.062, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 65C-16, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners' Foster Care Licensure History Petitioners are married and are the parents of two biological children. Mrs. Sawyer was reared with foster children and has always desired to become a foster parent. Petitioners were initially licensed by the Agency as foster parents in October of 1986, and six months later on April 20, 1987, Petitioners voluntarily closed their foster home due to Mrs. Sawyer's complications with the pregnancy of their second child. During the above six-month licensed period, Petitioners successfully fostered ten children, the last child was removed by the Agency from the foster home in March 1987. In December 1986, two months after initial licensing, Petitioners were the subject of an abuse report alleging spanking a child. The Agency's investigation concluded that the abuse report was "unfounded,"4 and closure was recommended by the Agency's investigator. On September 7, 1987, the Agency again licensed Petitioners as foster parents. Eight months thereafter, on May 23, 1988, the Agency again closed Petitioners' foster home. On August 10, 1988, three months later, the Agency, for the third time, licensed Petitioners as foster parents. Mrs. Sawyer acknowledged using corporal discipline on a foster child during the 1988 licensure period. As a result of the corporal punishment incident in 1988, the Agency required Petitioners to attended its Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting (MAPP) classes, which Petitioners attended and completed. The 1988 licensure of Petitioners as foster parents was specifically granted for the "T/S" sibling group who, with voluntary permission of their biological parents, had been living with Petitioners for approximately two months before their official placement with Petitioners by the Agency. Since 1988, the Agency has annually renewed Petitioners' foster care license.5 Responding to the requests of the Agency, Petitioners on occasions fostered as many as 16 to 20 foster children. Petitioners' foster home was frequently used by the Agency for unannounced "overnight" foster care, many of which extended into protracted foster care periods. During periods when the Agency's need for foster home beds was pressing, the Agency's rule-of-five was waived by the Agency's District Administrator so that Petitioners could and did house more children.6 The record reflects no evidence of complaints of abuse or any other complaints during the periods the Agency needed and made use of Petitioners' home to foster children. The evidence of record, viewed chronologically, reflects a protracted period of intense investigation of allegations which, if true, were apparently ongoing over a period of months prior to the filing of Abuse Report 2000-198255, the basis of the Agency's intended revocation of Petitioners' foster care license. Petitioners' latest license was issued on August 24, 2000, and was effective until August 24, 2001. This August 24, 2000, foster home license is the subject of the Agency's revocation notice, which states: The revocation is based on the following reasons: Between December 21, 2000 and March 1, 2001, the Department of Children and Families investigated eleven reports of abuse and neglect involving your home. In Florida Abuse Hotline Report 2000-198255[7] it was concluded that there were verified findings of excessive corporal punishment and confinement, bizarre punishment and excessive restraint committed by Cynthia Sawyer towards several foster children in her care. The report also noted several instances of inappropriate physical punishment, which is a violation of the foster parent disciplinary policy. These incidents are considered "an intentional or negligent act materially affecting the health and safety of children in the home or agency" and a violation of the licensing rules promulgated pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes. Section 409.175(8)(b) 1 and 2 Florida Statutes; 65C- 13.010(1)(b)5 Florida Administrative Code. (emphasis added) The Agency's allegations of neglect and abuse revolved around four specific types of disciplinary activities that are alleged to have occurred on or after August 24, 2000, the date the current foster care license was issued, and to have terminated on or before March 1, 2001, the date the Agency removed children from Petitioners' home. The four specific types of disciplinary activities are: (1) excessive corporal punishment and confinement, (2) inappropriate physical punishment, (3) bizarre punishment, and (4) excessive restraints.8 In support of those allegations, the Agency presented the testimonies of several foster children, video- taped interviews of three foster children made in March 2001, approximately one month after removal from Petitioners' home; the testimony of another foster care parent; the testimony of a Guardian Ad Litem; and the testimonies of several of the Agency's employees. Mike Katz, agency employee, prepared the Administrative Complaint but had no personal knowledge of the abuse allegations contained in Abuse Report 2000-198255, which formed the basis for the Administrative Complaint he prepared. Mr. Katz acknowledged that his understanding of the Agency's practice and policy was that "one incident of corporal punishment" did not equate to foster care license revocation. According to Mr. Katz, evaluating corporal punishment allegations requires all factors be taken into consideration and the totality of circumstances be reviewed; the intended result is a fact specific determination for each case of alleged corporal punishment. Kate Kimball's, the Sawyers' family service counselor, testimony was primarily concerned with agency reports dating from December 3, 1996, through the year 2000. Her testimony regarding and relating to matters that occurred prior to December 21, 2000, are not relevant nor material to issues of foster home license denial as stated in the Administrative Complaint that is challenged by Petitioners. However, Ms. Kimball's testimony regarding the Sawyers' life-style during the period she was their case worker is relevant and material to the issue of denial of the Sawyers' application to adopt the "M" children. The record reflects that in 1999, while fostering the "T/S" and the "M" siblings under the Agency's District Administrator's waiver of the rule-of-five policy, Petitioners were given an "Above Satisfactory" evaluation by the assigned foster care case worker, Kim Bryant. Ms. Bryant reported that the Sawyers are "very involved, supportative of the children's extra curricular activities and educational needs; show children much needed attention and affection; children and foster parents seem very fond of each other and there is much improvement with the children educationally and emotionally and they appear to have adjusted well in the home." Ms. Bryant's report is undisputed and credible. One year later, Hotline Report 2000-078274 was filed containing an allegation of medical negligence against Mrs. Sawyer as a result of her attempt to refill a prescribed medication for a foster child in her care after the child had taken all the medication. In this particular instance, the Agency had failed to provided Mrs. Sawyer with the child's medical record when the child was placed in her foster home. This medical negligence allegation was resolved when the case worker assigned to the Sawyers secured from the child's file the physician's prescription refill order. The Hotline Report was closed by the Agency with "No indicators of alleged maltreatment-or abuse/neglect." On June 26, 2000, and after the Sawyers added separate bedrooms and bathrooms for the girls and separate bedrooms and bathrooms for the boys to their home to accommodate 16 children, their case worker, Ms. Kimball, wrote, "It appeared that the Department has continued to utilize their home, as we have had no alternatives." The home study case worker's comments are revealing and reliable. It is reasonable to infer that the Agency was satisfied with the Sawyers' methods of disciplining foster children in their home, when they met the Agency's need for foster beds. However, when the Agency's need for foster beds were apparently met by other resources their prior position of satisfaction with the Sawyers, for reasons not entirely clear from the record, took a sudden 180-degree turn-about from satisfaction to dissatisfaction, within a six-month time period from June 26, 2000, to December 21, 2000. The case worker assigned to the "M" children, Anjanet Stilwell, reported that the Sawyers' foster home was "a wonderful foster home--they were very cooperative and caring." Case worker, Karen Braden, who was in the home twice weekly regarding kids assigned to her, wrote, "Cindy is great! I have no concerns regarding placement of my kids. I truly don't know how she does it!" I find Ms. Stilwell's and Ms. Braden's opinions acceptable and reflective of the Agency's approved satisfactory view of the Sawyers as foster parents for many children who were housed solely by the Agency's waiver of its rule-of-five policy and for its benefit. One foster care referral report regarding the "T/S" children written by case worker Heather Blair was considered at the Adoption Applicant Review Committee (AARC) staffing. In her report, Ms. Blair summarized Psychologist Lisa Gaise's conclusions that: "3 T/S children reported being paddle [sic] and 'the context in which these clear disclosures were made was so natural as to dispel any questions of the veracity of their statements.'" Apparently the AARC staffing considered Ms. Gaise's comments credible in their decision to deny the adoption application. The fact of the matter is that Ms. Blair's statement regarding the "truth" and acceptance of Lisa Gaise's opinion that the child's statement were true, is not accepted for the truth asserted and, therefore, is not credible.9 Bobby Cooper, another agency witness, commenced his investigation of Abuse Report 2000-198255, on December 21, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Cooper's investigation consisted entirely of reviewing reports of other agency investigators. Mr. Cooper had no personal knowledge nor had he personally sought independent collaboration of statements contained in the reports he reviewed. His testimony is not credible. Kate Kimball, the case worker assigned to Petitioners' foster home, often made announced and unannounced visits to Petitioners' foster home, as required by Agency policy. Ms. Kimball was in close and constant contact with the foster children and the foster parents during her visits to the home. Ms. Kimball was required to (1) observe the foster children, speak in confidence with each child individually, immediately report any "signs" of abuse or "suspected abuse," and to (4) cause "removal" of a child or children from abusive foster home situations. Ms. Kimball never requested nor caused removal of a child from Petitioners' foster home during the period of December 21, 2000, through March 2001, the period the abuse reports were allegedly "verified." Detective Christi Esquinaldo was assigned to investigate this case by Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. Her investigation consisted of interviewing foster child L.S., reviewing the abuse reports, and creating a matrix from those reports. The matrix consisted of Detective Esquinaldo's listing the names of children who were alleged to have been subjected to a specific abusive discipline crossed referenced by the names of the children who made the allegations. According to Detective Esquinaldo, L.S. told her that the Sawyers "made children stand in a corner for three to four hours" as punishment, and Lil David was restrained to a chair for "three to four hours." However, during her testimony at the hearing, L.S. denied having made those statements to Detective Esquinaldo. L.S.'s testimony at the final hearing is credible. In closing her investigation, Detective Esquinaldo recommended to the State Attorney's Office the direct filing of a felony charge of Aggravated Child Abuse against the Sawyers. The Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office, citing "numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the children," declined to file any charges against the Sawyers and closed their files on the matter. After reviewing the children's testimonies of record, I am compelled to agree with the Hillsborough County State Attorney Office that the "inconsistencies of the statements of the children" render their collective testimonies unreliable and insufficient to provide a preponderance of evidence necessary to establish a fact. None of the adult witnesses, presented by the Agency, possessed knowledge acquired through collaboration of the children's stories from independent sources and/or their investigations regarding the abuse allegations alleged in the Complaint. The Agency's employees' initial and total acceptance of the children's recollection of time, i.e. as "all day" and "all night," should have, but did not raise reasonable concern regarding each child's ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality and the child's accuracy of recall as well. The children's story-line, that Petitioners forced each of them to walk, to stand in time-outs, to dig holes, to sleep in their beds or do any other activities "all day" or "all night," was testified to as a form of punishment and not discipline for acting up. Accepting as true, accurate, and realistic, their identical versions of four specific experiences from the several children without more does not equate to credible nor collaborative evidence. The testimonies presented by several foster children at this hearing were, at best, confusing, conflicting and contradictory. When asked specific questions about the several forms and methods of discipline, the unanimity of their responses were: stand in the corner "all night," dig holes "all day," walk in circles "all day," and sleep in the bed "all day." The fact that the children's testimonies clustered in a certain position (sibling groups wanting to stay together as a group and those sibling groups wanting to be moved to another foster home as a group gave almost identical answers to questions relating to specific disciplines) does not mean nor imply that their testimonies were necessarily accurate, realistic, or true. In fact, the record reflects that several of the testimonies initially given by the children to the Agency were in conflict with their testimonies subsequently given to the Agency representatives and testimony given at the final hearing. Considering the children's testimonies in the context of the children's ages; the children's physical sizes; the physical improbability of a small child actually squatting, with knees bent, against a wall with both arms held out in front of the body or held out to the sides of their bodies all day; and their description of time as "all day" and "all-night," rendered their collective testimonies unrealistic, unreliable and, therefore, not credible. Steve Barber, Petitioners' pastor and the one who has interfaced with the foster children, based upon his experience as a former high school football coach, gave undisputed testimony that the physical size and stature of the young children made it physically impossible for any of them to "stand, squat, dig or walk in circles, all day." Based upon the testimony of Mr. Barber and the unrealistic testimonies of the several children, Respondent has failed to prove that Petitioners committed "excesses" in administering policy discipline, by imposing time-outs, separation from other children, grounding, loss of privileges, and by assigning other chores. I find that the cumulative testimonies of the foster children found in the Agency reports in evidence and of those children who testified at the final hearing unreliable, inconsistent, devoid of details, physically impossible in most instances and, therefore, insufficient to establish by a preponderance that the Sawyers subjected them to: (1) excessive corporal punishment and confinement, (2) inappropriate physical punishment, (3) bizarre punishment, and (4) use of excessive restraints as punishment as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. Of the three video-taped interviews reviewed by the undersigned, the interview of D.I. revealed a reliable and detailed account of the daily life and activities of the foster children in the Sawyers' home from an articulate child with personal knowledge and accurate recall of events. First, D.I. was in the Sawyers' foster care for a period of seven months. Second, D.I. appeared to be bright, intelligent, articulate, straight-forward, and he was definite and clear in his responses to questions asked by the Agency's spokesperson. Third, D.I.'s memory of details was complete, uncompromising, realistic, and reasonable. Fourth, D.I. acknowledged that his possibility of being reunited with his biological mother was nonexistent, and he would probably be in foster care until his majority, if not adopted, preferably by the Sawyers. Fifth, he is familiar with and aware of foster children, individually and as sibling groups "working the foster care system for their desired ends by telling stories." During his seven months' stay in foster care with the Sawyers, D.I. testified that he never saw nor was he made aware by other children of any child punished by the Sawyers in the form of being forced to stand in time-out "all day," forced to dig holes "all night," or forced to walk in circles "all day." D.I. knew that Lil L.S. pooped in her pants and smeared the poop over the walls of the foster care residence. He knows this because he was one of the older children who volunteered to clean the poop off the walls; he remembers these incidents because the walls had "white spots" where the cleaning solutions were used. He also remembered because Mrs. Sawyer would put white powder on the bedroom floor leading from Lil L.S.'s room to other parts of the house. In the morning when Lil L.S. was awaken and asked about poop on the walls, she would blame other children, but her foot prints would prove contradiction of the story of not having gotten out of bed during the night. According to D.I., Lil L.S. was never "hosed down outside" the house after pooping on herself. Each time Lil L.S. pooped on herself, Mrs. Cindy would require her to go into her bathroom10 and bathe herself. When asked about household chores and work around the house as a form of punishment, D.I. answered that older children would be offered the opportunity to "work outside" with Mr. Sawyer on "things around the house," only if that child wanted to work outside. If not, the child was given the option to stay outside and play or to go inside and watch T.V., play games, or do other things. D.I. was emphatic that the opportunity to do other things was made available to each child only after that child completed his or her homework. Homework was always first, and some children got in trouble because of not doing or completing their homework. According to D.I., the younger children who played outside would customarily play in the round-about driveway, the yard, and on the Jungle Jim play set. The older children would customarily do other things. D.I.'s examples of "doing things around the house" were: helping Mr. Sawyer work on his truck; putting together and/or repairing the Jungle Jim swing-slide play set; helping to dig a trench line to lay pipe for the new water heater connection; tending to and caring for the animals; planting trees and stuff; and painting and building additional bathrooms and bedrooms onto the house. According to D.I., all outside activities were made available to any children who wished to participate in them instead of playing among themselves. When asked, D.I. was empathic in his answer that no child, "as a form of punishment," was forced to assist Mr. Sawyer in "doing things around the house," if they wanted to help they could, if not, then other activities were available and that no child was handcuffed nor had he seen any (metal) handcuffs at the Sawyers' house, save his pair of red plastic toy handcuffs that came with a toy set the Sawyers gave him. D.I., from observation, knew Lil David to be self-mutilating.11 D.I. recalls that "Lil David would sometimes just pick himself to make himself bleed." During his seven-month stay and on more than one occasion, in passing, D.I. would see Lil David in bed at night with velcro restraints on his wrists and the bed to stop him from picking himself and making himself bleed. "Mrs. Cindy did this to keep Lil David from picking himself when he was asleep."12 Regarding meal times and meals at Mrs. Cindy's, D.I. stated that all the children ate the same meal at the same time "cause there was so many of us and Mrs. Cindy had no time for separate meals and we [older children] helped to feed the young children, we did help." When asked about peanut butter sandwiches as a form of punishment, D.I. responded, "Those children who had been bad or were in time-out at mealtime were separated from the other children and given peanut butter sandwiches to eat while in their time-outs. But Mrs. Cindy would say to them 'say you are sorry and you can join us.'" He never saw nor knew of a child in time-out (against the wall) for "hours." The longest time-out he could recall was about "20 minutes," and that was because the child was "acting up" in the time-out and had additional time added to the time-out. D.I. was familiar with the "T/S" and (other) siblings. He knew from personal experience in foster care that older siblings would instruct their younger siblings on all matters: what to say, when to say it, how to act, and how to act up. D.I. was personally familiar with "foster homes" and the means and methods of "getting out of one" and "staying together" as a sibling group and getting into another as a group. When asked about "corporal punishment" i.e. spanking with a wooden paddle and/or slapping with hands, D.I. testified that during his seven-month stay, he knew of no child to have gotten spanked with a wood paddle. "I never saw a wood paddle." Regarding "getting slapped by Mrs. Cindy" as punishment, D.I. answered that Ms. Cindy would "tap" you on the back of the head, butt, or shoulder "to get your attention, like if she was talking to you and you were watching T.V. and not answering her but she never slapped any of us for punishment." This method of getting one child's attention by touching is reasonable when considered in the context of the Agency's waiver of its rule-of- five policy so as to place as many as 16 to 20 children in the Sawyers' foster care home. 13 The video testimony of D.I. is accurate, detailed, reasonable, realistic, based upon his personal knowledge, undisputed and, therefore, credible. Based in part upon the video testimony of D.I., Respondent has failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the Sawyers subjected a foster child in their care to: (1) excessive corporal punishment and confinement, (2) inappropriate physical punishment, (3) bizarre punishment, and (4) use of excessive restraints for the time period alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Sawyers' admitted use of velcro restraints on Lil David was neither excessive, punitive nor disciplinary, but rather was for Lil David's protection from harming himself. The Sawyers' used velcro restraints on Lil David during the day only when he was in time-out and sitting in a small rocking chair and during the night when he was put to bed. The evidence of record by testimonies of virtually every witnesses who knew Lil David knew him to be a self-mutilator. The use of restraints is an acceptable, preventative method for protection in this situation. The record contains no evidence that the Agency provided the Sawyers with an evaluation report of Lil David upon his placement nor during his stay within their foster home. Lil David's medical report would have advised the Sawyers of Lil David's self-mutilation problem. It is a reasonable assumption that had the Agency provided Lil David's medical records, the Sawyers would have been alerted to Lil David's self-mutilation problem and would have had the benefit of the Agency's instructions regarding care and protection for Lil David's problem of self-mutilation. The Sawyers' admitted use of velcro restraints reflects a caring and sincere effort of the foster parents to protect the child from hurting himself. In the absence of information from the Agency regarding Lil David's condition, the Sawyers' use of an acceptable, safe and preventative method of care for this particular problem reflects their efforts to comply with the "spirit" of the rules regarding foster parent responsibilities. The record contains no evidence that the Sawyers' use of velcro restraints to prevent Lil David's self- mutilation was "willfully harmful" or "neglect" or an "abusive" act of intentional punishment. Bobby Cooper's, child protection investigator, reported findings and conclusions were based entirely upon statements provided by individuals he interviewed. The record contains no evidence of collaboration to substantiate testimonies of the children. Therefore, Mr. Cooper's testimony is hearsay without support and therefore, not credible. Finally, consideration is given to what is not in evidence. First, the record in this case contains no evidence of a child alleged to have suffered ongoing neglect and abuse in the form of excessive, bizarre,14 and inappropriate punishment, or to have borne body marks or bruises resulting from the alleged treatment by the Sawyers. Second, the record in this case contains no evidence of a Sawyer-housed foster child to have suffered "physical, mental or emotional injury" as the result of the alleged negligent and abusive treatment. Third, the record contains no evidence from which it could be inferred that a foster child removed from Petitioners' home suffered a "discernible and substantial impairment in the ability to function within the normal range of performance and behavior" as a direct result of the alleged abusive discipline.15 The evidence of record supports a reasonable conclusion that Mrs. Sawyer was proactive in seeking the assistance of local politicians and state officials to accomplish her apparent goal of responsive and exceptional services from the Department for her foster children. It is undisputed that the Sawyers, with the advice and consent of the Department, had more foster children than was reasonable to expect only two adults to provide a minimal of custodial care. Permitting the Sawyers to house as many as 16 to 20 foster children, plus their two biological children, at any point in time, was permissive and self serving by the Department and was overreaching acceptance by the Sawyers. It is a reasonable inference that in this case both the Department and the Sawyers engaged in a mutual course of conduct to satisfy their respective needs and desires. When the mutually beneficial relationship came to a close, a reversal of opinions and recommendations from the Department regarding the Sawyers occurred. The Sawyers, who had been described by the Department as "unbelievable foster parents," became merely unbelievable when confronted with and evaluated by conflicting stories of 14 foster children removed from their home. Denial of Adoption Application for the M sibling group Turning to evidence in the record regarding the denial of Petitioners' application to adopt the four "M" siblings, the fact that some animosity existed between Ms. Gains16 and Mrs. Sawyer, became readily apparent during Ms. Gains' testimony. The existence of animosity was further confirmed by Ms. Gains' detailed chronology of alleged abusive acts and omissions by Mrs. Sawyer over a period in excess of one year. When answering questions asked by the Agency's representative regarding Ms. Gains' statements and opinion of Mrs. Sawyer, D.I. answered: "She [sic] said handcuffs and other things about Mrs. Cindy so as to get kids moved out of Mrs. Cindy's house to her house." Based upon D.I. testimony above, Ms. Gains' testimony given at the hearing and her written report in evidence is biased and unreliable. In the evaluation and review of Petitioners' adoption request, Respondent appropriately engaged in a holistic evaluation of all abuse reports filed, investigative reports, personal opinions, and comments from Department employees, community members and other foster parents, dating from as early as 1986 to the date of the adoption denial. Respondent, in reevaluation of Petitioners' adoption request for the "M" children, should hereinafter be guided by the Findings of Fact herein that allegations of excessive discipline as contained in the Administrative Compliant herein were not proven by the testimonies of the Agency's witnesses and documentary evidence. Therefore, allegations found in Abuse Report 2000-198255 reported or alleged to have occurred within the time period of December 21, 2000, through March 1, 2001, shall not be considered by the Agency in its reevaluation of the Sawyers' application to adopt the "M" siblings; being mindful that the "M" siblings' desire to be adopted by the Sawyers is in the "M" child(ren)'s best interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting renewal of Petitioners' Foster Care License. It is further RECOMMENDED, that in accord with the expressed desires of the "M" siblings to be adopted by Petitioners, that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioners' application to adopt the "M" siblings. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 13th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Petitioners committed violations of Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code sufficient to justify revocation of Petitioners’ license to operate a foster care facility.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners’ foster home is a private agency foster home licensed by Respondent to provide substitute care for children in foster care. On or about August 24, 2000, a report was made to the Florida Abuse Registry indicating that a child, A.C., who suffers from Downs Syndrome and who resided in Petitioners’ care at the time, had suffered a burn mark that was three to four inches long. The burn reportedly appeared to be from an iron. Pursuant to this report, Respondent’s Child Protective Investigator commenced an investigation of the matter on August 24, 2000. During the course of the August 24, 2000, investigation, Respondent’s investigator observed the burn on A.C.’s arm. Testimony of the investigator establishes the presence of such a burn on A.C.’s arm at the time. That testimony is corroborated by photographs in Respondent’s Composite Exhibit No. 3 and fairly and accurately depicts A.C.’s burned arm as it appeared on August 24, 2001. Petitioner Carol Golden, when asked about the situation, stated that she was unaware of the burn on A.C.’s right arm until the matter was brought to her attention by the investigation which commenced on August 24, 2000, following the discovery of the child's injury by school personnel. Interviews with other children in the home revealed that another child was ironing clothes on the evening of August 23, 2000, and left the iron unattended momentarily, during which time A.C. burned his arm on the iron. Respondent’s investigator referred A.C. to the Child Protection Team for an examination of his injury. Subsequently, A.C. was removed from Petitioners’ foster home after the findings of the Child Protection Team revealed that the child’s injury was indicative of inadequate supervision. Respondent’s investigator concluded her investigation and closed the case, Abuse Report 2000-133049, with verified findings for lack of supervision and failure to seek medical attention for A.C. Subsequently, Petitioners’ foster care license was revoked because of the verified findings of neglect and inadequate supervision found in Abuse Report 2000-133049. Medical examination of A.C.’s injury, as it appeared on August 24, 2000, reveals that the injury was on the child’s right arm; was five by eight centimeters in size; and was a charred burn in the shape of an iron with the circles for the steam holes clearly visible. The burn was in such a place, and of such a size, that any caretaker responsible for the bathing and clothing of A.C. should have seen the injury. Attempts by Respondent’s employees to conduct an assessment of A.C. were not successful. He was friendly and interacted well; however, he only pointed to his injury and could not communicate how it happened.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the testimony of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered confirming the revocation of Petitioner’s foster license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Golden Carol Golden 7939 Denham Road Jacksonville, Florida 32208 Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Peggy Sanford, 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 May the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) revoke Respondent's foster home license for violating Section 409.175 (8)(b) 1., Florida Statutes, in that Respondent intentionally or negligently committed acts that materially affected the health and safety of children, to-wit: inadequate supervision of a minor child entrusted to her care?
Findings Of Fact R.G. is the biological mother of the infant female, A.G., born out of wedlock. R.G. gave birth to a male child before A.G. That son was taken away from R.G. by DCF. Both A.G. and R.G., while R.G. was yet a minor under the age of 18 years, were adjudicated dependent children, subject to placement by DCF, pending DNA testing of A.G. and two putative fathers. R.G. had been placed with a licensed foster home other than Respondent's licensed foster home. That home requested R.G.'s removal because R.G. would not follow its rules. R.G. with A.G., was then placed in the licensed foster care home of Respondent. Although the placement of A.G. with Respondent raised Respondent's home population to one more live foster child than Respondent's licensed capacity, a situation to which Respondent objected, DCF personnel informed Respondent that the infant A.G. would be counted as part of R.G.'s placement. Therefore, despite A.G. and R.G. being two separate persons, DCF would not consider Respondent to have exceeded her license's capacity. It was not explained on the record how DCF intended to pay board to Respondent for care of A.G., if A.G. were not considered a whole person, but it is clear that DCF personnel resented Respondent's asking how she would be compensated for A.G.'s care. At all times material, R.G. and A.G. were subject to a Circuit Court Order which permitted only "unsupervised day visitation" by R.G. with A.G. (Emphasis in the original). By implication of the Circuit Court Order, and by her own understanding from instructions by DCF personnel, Respondent knew that R.G., the minor mother, was not permitted to have unsupervised night visitation with the dependent infant, A.G. DCF's and Respondent's understanding of the Circuit Court Order was that Respondent, R.G., and A.G. were required to be in Respondent's home after dark, but Respondent was not required to "eyeball" R.G. and A.G. all night, every night, while they were present in Respondent's foster home. Gracie Rager, DCF foster care worker, authorized Respondent to allow R.G. to take A.G. out of Respondent's foster home during the day for unsupervised visitation. Ms. Rager also authorized Respondent to allow R.G. to take A.G. to R.G.'s older natural sister's home to spend some nights, including weekends. R.G.'s older natural sister was married and licensed for foster care. Accordingly, DCF personnel, including Ms. Rager, presumed that the older sister was sufficiently responsible and qualified to provide supervision of R.G. and A.G. at night. DCF reasonably concluded that R.G.'s presence with A.G. in her sister's home at night would constitute supervised night visitation and comply with the Court's Order. Ms. Rager never authorized Respondent to allow R.G. to take A.G. out at night by herself, but Ms. Rager reasonably saw no impediment, including the Circuit Court Order, to R.G. taking A.G. with her anywhere she wanted to take the baby during the day. R.G. openly resented being placed with Respondent because Respondent is Black. R.G. wanted to return, with A.G., to a white foster home placement. As a result, R.G. was never cooperative with Respondent. When R.G. turned 18 years of age, she became openly defiant of Respondent. R.G. insisted that she alone, would do everything for A.G., who was still under two years old. R.G. refused all assistance from Respondent concerning A.G. Respondent asked DCF to remove R.G. and A.G. or at least A.G., from her foster home. DCF had no other placement for them and asked Respondent to keep them until another placement was found. R.G. had a part-time day job. To get there, she would "catch a ride" with others. She would not accept a ride from Respondent. Sometimes, R.G. would take A.G. with her to work and go directly from work, with A.G., to her older, licensed sister's home. On these occasions, R.G. and A.G. might be gone for a night or a weekend. When R.G. did not return to Respondent's foster home, Respondent sometimes called R.G.'s older, licensed sister's home to be sure that R.G. and A.G. had arrived there safely. Sometimes, Respondent asked this sister to call her when R.G. and A.G. arrived. However, Respondent did not always contact R.G.'s older, licensed sister or otherwise check-up on R.G.'s and A.G.'s whereabouts overnight or over a weekend. When R.G. and A.G. returned after a night or weekend away, Respondent did not always check up on where they had been. Respondent was under the impression that a different, adult sister of R.G.'s was also a suitable adult supervisor for after dark, even though that sister was not licensed for foster care. Indeed, there is nothing in the Circuit Court Order requiring that supervised night-time visitation of R.G. with A.G. could not be undertaken by any other adult, regardless of whether that person were licensed for foster care. Respondent never checked to see if R.G. and A.G. were with R.G.'s unlicensed sister. At no time did Respondent report to law enforcement or DCF that R.G. had gone off and failed to return or that R.G. was taking A.G. away on weekends. At some point, R.G.'s authorized and licensed older sister called Ms. Rager and said R.G. had taken A.G. out all night with R.G.'s boyfriend and had not returned. It is unclear from Ms. Rager's testimony whether R.G.'s and A.G.'s departure point for their night or weekend of unsupervised visitation was Respondent's home or R.G.'s licensed sister's home. On February 9, 2001, Ms. Page, a DCF protective investigator, responded to an abuse hotline call and met with Respondent in the lobby of a DCF facility. During her interview of Respondent, Ms. Page knew nothing of where either R.G. or A.G. had been picked up, or how long they had been unsupervised at night, but Ms. Page "understood" from Ms. Rager that R.G. and A.G. had been removed from Respondent's home and that Respondent had come to the DCF facility voluntarily. Ms. Page was particularly concerned because of a comment Respondent made in the course of this interview, to the effect that Respondent guessed she had "handled it all wrong" because she had only asked to have the baby, A.G., removed from her care instead of reporting R.G.'s rebelliousness. DCF Investigator Page testified that she "verified" in an abuse report that Respondent was guilty of neglect by failure to notify authorities of R.G.'s unsupervised night visitation with A.G. There is insufficient evidence to determine of Respondent ever had a chance to challenge the abuse report or if the report was ever "confirmed." There is no evidence R.G. or A.G. suffered harm as a result of this incident.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing charges against Respondent and restoring her foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: David West, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Dr. James Brant, Qualified Representative 1140 Durkee Drive, North Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Cheryl Smith Post Office Box 1053 Lake City, Florida 32056 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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 Respondents’ renewal foster home license application should be denied based upon allegations that Respondents violated a foster child’s safety plan, refused to sign a corrective action plan, and refused to work in partnership with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties DCF is the state agency responsible for licensing foster care parents and foster homes pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes. DCF administers foster care programs by contracting with third-party private entities. In Circuit 19, which is the geographic area encompassing Port St. Lucie, DCF has contracted with Devereux Community Based Care (“Devereux”) to be the “lead agency” to provide the majority of child services. Devereux, in turn, has subcontracted with Camelot Community Care (“Camelot”), which is licensed as a child placement agency. Respondents, who are husband and wife, are foster care parents in a foster care home licensed by DCF. At all times material hereto, Mr. and Mrs. Arias have fostered children at their home in Port St. Lucie. Respondent, Kathleen Arias (“Mrs. Arias”), does not work outside the foster home. She is a “stay-at-home” foster mom. Over the past 16 years, Mrs. Arias has fostered many children. Mrs. Arias is very loving to the foster children in her care, and she has provided a great benefit to the foster children in her care.2/ Kenneth Strout’s Prior History of Sexually Inappropriate Behaviors Kenneth Strout (“Kenneth”), who recently turned 18 years old, was placed into Respondents’ foster home in 2013. Prior to his placement in Respondents’ home, Kenneth engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviors. As a therapeutic foster child in Respondents’ home, Kenneth received therapeutic services, including therapy, psychiatric services, support, and therapeutic parenting by a trained therapeutic foster parent, Mrs. Arias. Despite receiving therapeutic services, Kenneth continued to engage in inappropriate sexual behaviors while living in Respondents’ home. During the time in which Kenneth lived in the home, he had a history of sexually touching others, exposing himself, and masturbating in close proximity to others. On one particular occasion on September 17, 2014, Kenneth was sitting on the couch watching television, and Mrs. Arias’ sister walked in the room. While she had her back to Kenneth, he dropped his pants, exposed himself to her, and pressed his penis against her buttocks. The Applicable Safety Plan Requirements As a result of this incident, an updated safety plan was developed.3/ The safety plan was signed by Mrs. Arias on October 8, 2014. Mrs. Arias reviewed the safety plan and is aware of the requirements of the safety plan. Specifically, the safety plan requires, in pertinent part: “Client needs to be within eyesight and earshot of a responsible adult, who is aware of and will enforce the safety plan at all times.” The May 28, 2015, Incident at LA Fitness and its Aftermath Against this backdrop, on May 28, 2015, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Mrs. Arias took Kenneth, who was 17 years old at the time, to LA Fitness, a gym facility in Port St. Lucie. Mrs. Arias had a membership at LA Fitness and frequented the facility on a regular basis. Despite Ms. Arias’ knowledge of Kenneth’s inappropriate sexual propensities, Kenneth often accompanied Mrs. Arias to the facility, where he would play basketball on an indoor basketball court, while Mrs. Arias exercised in another area at the facility. During the evening of May 28, 2015, Kenneth had been playing basketball on the indoor basketball court. He left the basketball court and approached Mrs. Arias and told her that he needed to use the bathroom. Mrs. Arias gave Kenneth permission to go to the bathroom. The men’s restroom is located inside the men’s locker room. At this point, Kenneth walked toward the men’s locker room, and entered the men’s locker room through the door leading from a hallway into the men’s locker room. Mrs. Arias did not go into the men’s locker room with Kenneth, nor was Kenneth accompanied by an adult when he entered the men’s locker room. Once Kenneth entered the men’s locker room, he walked to the other end of the locker room to another door, which led to the Jacuzzi area. Kenneth then opened the door from the men’s locker room leading to the Jacuzzi area. At this point, Kenneth observed a female, Concepcion Alvarado, sitting alone in the Jacuzzi. Ms. Alvarado was in her swimsuit. At this point, Ms. Alvarado was relaxing in the Jacuzzi with her eyes closed. After observing Ms. Alvarado for a moment, Kenneth stripped down to his boxer shorts, entered the Jacuzzi, and inappropriately touched Ms. Alvarado on her leg. Upon realizing that somebody touched her leg, Ms. Alvarado opened her eyes, saw Kenneth in front of her, and said to him: “What are you doing, little boy?” “Just get out of my way, or do your own stuff.” Kenneth then touched Ms. Alvarado on her shoulder. At this point, Ms. Alvarado became very angry and said to Kenneth: “Why are you touching me? You’re not supposed to do that.” “Just get out.” Kenneth smiled at Ms. Alvarado as Ms. Alvarado exited the Jacuzzi. Ms. Alvarado then entered the nearby pool. Kenneth followed Ms. Alvarado and jumped in the pool as well. Ms. Alvarado recognized Kenneth because he had engaged in similar inappropriate sexual behavior a week earlier. On the prior occasion, Kenneth and Ms. Alvarado were in the Jacuzzi when Kenneth tried to kiss her and touched her leg. Ms. Alvarado did not report the prior incident. However, Ms. Alvarado reported the May 28, 2015, incident to an LA Fitness employee. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement officers arrived at the facility and arrested Kenneth. Kenneth was taken to a juvenile detention facility where he spent the night. Kenneth was not within eyeshot or earshot of Mrs. Arias or another responsible adult once he entered the men’s locker room on May 28, 2015. Kenneth was not within eyeshot or earshot of Mrs. Arias or another responsible adult when the inappropriate physical contact perpetrated by Kenneth against Ms. Alvarado in the Jacuzzi on May 28, 2015, occurred. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondents violated the October 2014 safety plan by failing to ensure that Kenneth was within earshot and eyeshot of a responsible adult at all times when he was at LA Fitness. Had Kenneth been within eyeshot and earshot of a responsible adult at all times on May 28, 2015, while he was at LA Fitness, the incident in the Jacuzzi with Ms. Alvarado would not have occurred.4/ Notably, given Kenneth’s history of sexually inappropriate behaviors, Mrs. Arias knew that she was taking a risk to the public in bringing Kenneth to LA fitness because it was an environment that could be problematic for him. At hearing, Ms. Linda Green, a licensed clinical social worker formerly employed by Camelot, persuasively and credibly explained the difficulties she and Mrs. Arias faced in their efforts to deal with Kenneth’s sexually inappropriate behaviors. According to Ms. Green, a true bond developed between Mrs. Arias and Kenneth. Kenneth referred to Mrs. Arias as “mom,” and he felt like she was his mother. In an attempt to keep the family unit intact, Ms. Green wanted significant “client-directed therapy” and “advocation because the client should have the right to control their life.” On the other hand, Ms. Green was concerned about keeping society safe from Kenneth. In hindsight, Ms. Green candidly admitted at hearing that Kenneth “probably needed institutionalization sooner.” Mrs. Arias recognized her inability to control Kenneth’s sexually inappropriate behaviors and the danger he posed to society prior to the May 28, 2015, incident. Prior to the May 28, 2015, incident, Mrs. Arias requested that Kenneth be placed on a “30-Day Notice.” Kenneth was on a “30-Day Notice” when the incident at the gym on May 28, 2015, occurred. Nevertheless, Kenneth remained in the Respondents’ home as of the May 28, 2015, incident at the gym because Devereux was having difficulty finding a new placement, and Mrs. Arias agreed to keep Kenneth in the home until after the end of the school year. The school year ended the first week of June. Kenneth never returned to Respondents’ home after the May 28, 2015, incident at LA Fitness. Instead, Kenneth was discharged from the foster care program, and placed in a group facility where he has resided ever since. It is anticipated that Kenneth will remain in the group facility until he is 23 years old. Following the incident at the LA Fitness gym on May 28, 2015, DCF undertook an investigation. As a result of its investigation, DCF concluded that the safety plan was violated because Kenneth was not within earshot or eyeshot of a responsible adult when the incident at the gym on May 28, 2015, occurred. DCF’s investigation resulted in a verified finding of abuse against Respondents based on inadequate supervision. Based on DCF’s verified finding of abuse based on inadequate supervision, a corrective action plan was required by administrative rule and prepared for Respondents to execute. A corrective action plan is a document which identifies issues of concern to DCF and how DCF, as an agency, can work together with the foster parent to improve the foster parent’s performance. A corrective action plan serves as a supportive intervention and is not punitive in nature. Respondents refused to execute the corrective action plan because they were concerned that, in doing so, they would admit DCF’s investigative finding of abuse based on inadequate supervision. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondents refused to execute the corrective action plan. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondents failed to work in partnership with DCF.5/ Respondents’ foster care license was due to expire on October 18, 2015. After the May 28, 2015, incident occurred, DCF placed another child under Respondents’ care. Regardless of the incident at LA Fitness on May 28, 2015, DCF intended to re-license Respondents. DCF intended to renew Respondents’ foster care license after the May 28, 2015, incident despite the verified finding of inadequate supervision. DCF was unable to re-license Respondents because they failed to execute the corrective action plan required by rule. Had Respondents executed the corrective action plan required by DCF, Respondents’ foster care license would have been renewed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department of Children and Families placing Respondents’ foster care license in provisional status for six months, during which time Respondents shall execute the corrective action plan. If Respondents decline to execute the corrective action plan within six months, the provisional license will not be replaced with a regular license or renewed.7/ DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 3rd day of June, 2016.
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 to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioners have been guilty of violation of pertinent statutes and rules governing qualification and capability to hold a foster home license and to operate a foster home, in this case a "therapeutic foster home" and, if so, whether their application for renewal of licensure should be denied.
Findings Of Fact The above-named Petitioners were licensed as operators of a therapeutic foster home and as therapeutic foster parents. Due to an alleged abuse report, they became involved in a revocation proceeding with the Department concerning their previously-held license. Upon advice by personnel with Camelot, Inc. (Camelot), a private provider which provides services to the Department for therapeutic foster care, by contract, they voluntarily relinquished their previous license on February 6, 2006, in the belief that they would still be entitled to a formal proceeding to contest that the alleged abuse occurred, and their licensure entitlement. The Department declined to afford them a hearing on the issue, and they appealed to the District Court of Appeal for the First District. The Department was upheld. They then applied for a renewal of their therapeutic foster care license on August 10, 2006, for Lake County, Florida. An evaluation of the application was launched by the Department and ultimately the Department issued a denial of the license application. A timely request for an administrative proceeding to contest denial of that license was filed by the Giegers. The license denial was based initially upon the Department's determination that the Giegers had allegedly inappropriately punished children in their home and that they had some sort of business interest or income interest in being licensed foster parents, purportedly a violation of foster parenting rules. Sometime thereafter a supplemental basis for denial was served upon them by the Department wherein the Department alleged that the Petitioners had also violated Section 409.175(4) and (12)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), because they had a child placed in their home through a guardianship agreement that had not been approved by a court and were therefore acting as an unlicensed foster home. A response to that supplemental denial notice was made by the Petitioners. Therapeutic foster parents are trained to provide for children with difficult behavioral problems. The Giegers received this training and remained in compliance with the training updates and continued education necessary in order to continue their licensure in good standing. In addition to this, Mrs. Geiger is a trained mental health specialist, with a master's degree, who works for Lifestreams, a mental health provider, providing services to disturbed children. The Giegers were previously affiliated, as therapeutic foster parents, with the private provider, Camelot, which provides services to the Department for therapeutic foster care. They were licensed as therapeutic foster parents at that time, and accepted a number of severely disturbed children into their home over the years while they were affiliated with Camelot. When a foster parent has a child placed in their home, Camelot has a therapeutic system whereby a therapist is assigned to that child and is available for consultation at any time of day. If the primary therapist is unavailable, the supervisor of that therapist is available for consultation. Camelot's therapeutic personnel and various mental health professionals have been frequently in the Giegers' home to consult, monitor, and assist with the care and therapy of foster children placed there. A number of those therapeutic personnel testified. They established that the Giegers are excellent parents who have provided exemplary care to the foster children placed in their home. These people have training in mental health and related fields. Some hold master's degrees and have been trained to recognize abuse or evidence of it. Some are psychologists, specifically assigned as the mental health professional working with particular children placed in the Giegers' home. In 2005, a child, J.D., was placed in the Giegers' home by the Department. In addition to J.D., there were other children in the home, including Tyler, a non-foster care child placed privately by Camelot with the Giegers, as well as the Giegers' own adopted son. All of the children in the home had been abused prior to their placement with the Giegers. J.D.'s previous situation before coming to the Giegers' home was particularly egregious. He had been starved, locked in a closet, had his fingernails removed by his parents and otherwise was the victim of severe parental abuse before coming into foster care. His was a case of high public notoriety and appears to have been thus treated with a heightened level of attention by the Department, as compared to the case of other children. When J.D. arrived at the Giegers' home after his initial rescue from his earlier situation, he purportedly weighed 58 pounds and was only 4 feet 8 inches tall, at the age of 17 years. During the time he resided with the Giegers, he grew several inches and gained almost 80 pounds due to the care given him by the Giegers. He was placed on special vitamins and formula, in addition to his regular meals, in order to restore him to appropriate physical condition. Because of his physical condition, extra efforts were made by the Petitioners to assure his safety. They even placed him in a private school because they felt he would be at risk attending a large public high school, which he would otherwise have been required to attend. J.D. did well at the Giegers' home initially and it was planned for him to remain in their home after he reached 18 years of age, if he continued to adjust favorably to being a member of their family. He began "acting out" more severely, however, with problematic behaviors. Ultimately it was determined by both the Giegers and Camelot that he should not remain in their home after he turned 18 because of the adverse impact he was having on other children residing in the home. Before the determination was made that J.D. would not remain in the Giegers' home after he reached 18 years of age, the Department had praised the Petitioners' care of J.D. After that decision was made, an attorney for the Department suggested to Mrs. Gieger that she be hired by the Department to provide special services to J.D. Apparently there was a funding problem with regard to continuing J.D. in private school, and this was suggested as a means of funding the private school. Mrs. Gieger, however, did not feel this funding was appropriate because she was already being paid by Camelot for these services, and expressed this to the attorney, she therefore declined that offer. In December 2005 the Department decided to have J.D. re-evaluated by his original evaluator, a psychologist, Dr. Dykel. During his meeting with Dr. Dykel, J.D. apparently told Dr. Dykel that the Giegers had cursed in his presence and in the presence of other children, used racially derogatory language concerning Black children in the foster childrens' presence and that Mrs. Gieger had sat on him as a means of restraint or punishment. He also stated that he was being deprived of food. This meeting occurred on a Friday afternoon. After the meeting J.D. returned to the Giegers' home and made statements about what he had said to Dr. Dykel. Initially the Petitioners thought nothing about the statements, but on the following Tuesday an abuse report was called in indicating that the Giegers had inappropriately punished J.D. in the manner he had related to Dr. Dykel. The child Tyler, who had been placed in the Giegers' home was a child who suffered from severe mental health issues. He had been placed privately with Camelot by his father. He had set his father's and step-mother's bed on fire the previous Christmas because he did not receive a toy, a "PS2," that he asked to be given him for Christmas. There was testimony that he was told by J.D. that if he would make a statement against the Giegers to the Department that he would get the PS2 toy that he wanted. He was taken by Erica Summerfield, an investigator assigned by the Department to the case concerning the abuse report, to the "Child Advocacy Center," for a statement. He apparently made such a statement, of the above import, but then recanted it. Nonetheless, based only on the statement made by J.D. and by Tyler, Erica Summerfield made a determination that the abuse report should be determined to be "founded." As a result of her report (and apparently a past history of abuse reports concerning the Giegers' foster care facility, none of which had been proven to be "founded"), Camelot apparently suggested to the Giegers that they voluntarily relinquish their license, purportedly telling them that they would still have the ability to challenge the abuse report through a Chapter 120 hearing. They sought to obtain a Chapter 120 hearing and the Department denied their request. An appeal ensued and the denial by the Department was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal. During the pendency of that appeal, the Giegers filed an application to renew their license, which was denied. This proceeding ensued after that denial, when the Giegers requested a formal proceeding. The Department offered the testimony of Erica Summerfield who was a child protective investigator assigned to the investigation. She was the supervisor of the person who interviewed J.D. and Tyler, apparently the only sources of investigative information leading to her finding that abuse had occurred. Ms. Summerfield testified that her concerns about the Giegers led her to make a report finding that abuse had occurred because alarms had been placed on the bedroom doors of childrens' bedrooms in the Giegers home; that the Giegers had used excessive restraint against J.D. (allegedly held him on the floor and lay on him or sat on him); and that J.D. had been mentally injured by the Giegers and not provided with sufficient food. She also opined that Mrs. Gieger had made inappropriate statements to J.D. None of these purported findings are supported by credible evidence. Initially it is found that J.D.'s and Tyler statements to the interviewer, who then apparently related them to Ms. Summerfield, constitute, at best, "second-hand" hearsay. Neither the interviewer nor J.D., nor Tyler testified at the hearing, and Tyler later recanted his statements made to the interviewer. The Respondent's exhibits two, three, and four, the interview reports, were offered into evidence and were only admitted regarding a basis for the Department's course of conduct in the matter, but not for the truth of any facts depicted on the face of those exhibits. Concerning the alleged complaint, related to the interviewer, regarding lack of food, the credible persuasive evidence shows that J.D. actually grew several inches after being placed with the Giegers, even though doctors had opined that he would not grow much, if at all, because of the starvation that had occurred early in his life. He also gained substantial weight while being cared for by the Giegers, so that he essentially looked like a normal child by the time he left their care. He had been emaciated when he came to the Giegers' care and had been described as looking like a "concentration camp victim." He was described as being far smaller than a child of his age when he came to the Giegers' care, but seven months later appeared to be essentially a normal child in physical appearance. The evidence, in fact, clearly supports the determination that the Giegers did provide J.D. with appropriate nutrition during their care of him. The basis for the alleged abuse regarding his not being properly fed is simply not credible. The Giegers had also been accused by J.D. or Tyler, or both, with using inappropriate language, racial slurs and cursing in J.D.'s presence, purportedly causing him mental harm. However, mental health experts present in the Giegers' home on a weekly and almost daily basis had never heard any inappropriate language, including any inappropriate racial language or inappropriate cursing in the childrens' presence during their visits to the Giegers' home. Many of these visits were unannounced. Two of the counselors or mental health professionals often present in the home were African-American. They found no evidence of racial tension or racially derogatory language being used by the Giegers or in the Giegers' home. It was their belief that the Giegers did not exhibit any behavior which suggested racism. Further, there were no Black children placed in the Giegers' home during the time that J.D. was there. There is simply no credible evidence to support any finding that inappropriate language was used by Mr. or Mrs. Gieger in J.D.'s or other childrens' presence, of a racially derogatory nature or otherwise. Part of the basis for the abuse finding (and the reason for license denial) was excess restraint or "sitting on" J.D. as punishment. This position was based on the statements of the two children, J.D. and Tyler. One of them, Tyler, tearfully recanted his story shortly after he made the statement. Erica Summerfield testifying for the Department, admitted in her testimony that she was aware of his recantation. She also admitted that Tyler's parents had asked her more than once to allow him to be placed back in the Giegers' home. They also had disclosed to her that he had a habit of making inappropriate statements and lying. There is evidence that J.D. had told him that he would receive a toy he wanted very much if he would make a statement to the Department that J.D. had been abused by the Giegers. Most importantly, J.D. had identified the point in time when Ms. Gieger was supposed to have sat on him as during an occasion when he broke a window at the house. Other mental health providers who were in the home around that time reported never seeing any bruise marks or other evidence of injury to J.D. or at any other time. They also reported that Mrs. Gieger was especially careful of his safety because of the seriously debilitated condition of his body. Most importantly, however, during the time that the window was broken by J.D. and he was severely acting out, Mrs. Gieger was on the phone with a professional from Camelot who was helping her to calm or "de-escalate" J.D. and who remained on the phone with Mrs. Gieger during the entire incident. That expert heard nothing which indicated that Mrs. Gieger had sat on the child or in anyway inappropriately restrained him. Mrs. Gieger denied using physical restraints on the foster children at the hearing. The Department maintains, however, that in two prior reports discussed in Camelot's letter, report 1999-127436 and 2002-007021, the Giegers had admitted restraining foster children. In the 1999 incident the child purportedly sustained rug burns on the face while being restrained on the floor by Mr. Gieger. These reports are at best second-hand hearsay. Moreover, they are not reasons of which the Petitioners were provided notice, as part of the basis for the denial of their licensure application which triggered this proceeding. Moreover, both of those incidents were immediately reported by the Giegers themselves to the Department and, ironically, the Department did not see fit to make any determination at the time, or since, that those incidents amounted to abuse. No finding was made that those alleged incidents were "founded" abuse episodes. Moreover, the Department relies upon an incident where Mrs. Gieger purportedly stated that she used force against J.D. when he tried to grab her neck. She purportedly told Ms. Summerfield in an interview that she gave J.D. a "therapeutic bear hug" by grabbing his arm and turning him around. He fell to the floor as a result. Parenthetically, not even the Department claims that she forced him to the floor. Mrs. Gieger's testimony at hearing concerning this event was to the effect that she grabbed J.D.'s wrist in order to prevent him from striking her or grabbing her neck and that he just collapsed to the floor. The Department then maintains that foster parents are not permitted to use such "force" on foster children, such as grabbing J.D.'s wrist, because it equates this to the use of corporal punishment and that grabbing a child's arm or wrist could "traumatize" an already vulnerable foster child. Mrs. Gieger's testimony, however, indicates that the use of "therapeutic bear hug," even if it occurred, is part of an approved method of training which she had, which is designed to safely manage children who are acting out in a potentially dangerous way, until they can calm down. She testified that Camelot, the Department's contracting agent, had approved this training for her. Moreover, when a foster parent is in danger of attack by a 17-year-old, even a somewhat debilitated child, who threatened striking or grabbing the foster parent by neck or throat, to grab his arm or wrist to prevent such conduct is reasonable and does not constitute unreasonable restraint. Assuming this event occurred, to characterize the grabbing of a child's wrist, to prevent injury or potential injury to a foster parent or another, as excessive force or "corporal punishment" is nonsensical. There is no credible, persuasive evidence that either Mr. or Mrs. Gieger engaged in any excessive force or restraint amounting to abuse. A concern was raised by Dr. Dykle, the psychologist, who was fearful of the fact that alarms had been placed on childrens' rooms in the foster home. Ms. Summerfield based her finding that abuse had occurred, in part, on the report that the alarms had been placed on the doors of some of the childrens' rooms. Ms. Summerfield, however, admitted in her testimony that alarms are often and routinely placed on childrens' rooms in therapeutic foster care homes. The mental health experts who testified clearly established that in every therapeutic foster home such alarms must be placed on bedroom doors because of a safety concern for other children. Children who are placed in this type of home are often serious safety risks for themselves or for other children. They have often been found themselves to be perpetrators of inappropriate or violent conduct. Many times they are children who have been sexually abused and have themselves become sexual perpetrators. In fact, there was a child in the Giegers' home at the time J.D. was there who had set his parents' bed on fire because he did not get a desired toy for Christmas. Dr. Dykle's apparent grave concern about alarms being placed on the childrens' bedroom doors is surprising since it appears to be completely contrary to generally accepted, safe practice for therapeutic foster homes, something that he should have been aware of if he is indeed an expert in child abuse issues. Ms. Summerfield admitted that she was aware that this was a virtually universal safety practice in therapeutic foster homes and yet, paradoxically, used it as a factor in support of her finding that abuse had occurred, as a basis of denial of re-licensure. Ms. Summerfield also admitted that she had spoken with Camelot professionals who assured her that the Giegers had been exemplary foster care parents. She acknowledged that J.D. had made untrue statements in the past about other foster placements. She admitted that the only evidence of improper restraint, or any kind of abuse or neglect in the home, was essentially predicated on the statements of the two children who did not testify in this proceeding. She conceded that one of them had recanted and she knew of this well before the hearing. Mental health experts from Camelot who testified, established that it is a very frequent event for foster children placed in therapeutic foster homes to act out and to make false statements and accusations concerning their care-givers. They also indicated that J.D. had made such false allegations in the past against other caregivers. This was all information that a thorough investigation would have made known to the Department, at the time it was making the determination that there was a basis for a finding of abuse. The only witness other than Ms. Summerfield, presented by the Department, was Amy Hammett, the licensing official who actually signed the letter denying the license application. She testified that she did not review all of the documents that made up the Giegers' license application. Some other department employee had been assigned to the case and it had been later transferred to Ms. Hammett before the final decision was made. She had reviewed five relevant forms, but nothing else. She had no evidence to support the Department's position that the Giegers had relied upon the foster care services they provided for income to support their own family, other than the fact that they had taken a legal position in the appeal from the previous attempt at a Chapter 120 proceeding, to the effect that they had something in the nature of a property interest in their foster care license. This may have been a necessary position to take in an attempt to establish jurisdiction or standing in that proceeding, but other than that, and one statement attributable to Mr. Gieger that there was an adverse financial effect on the Giegers related to that proceeding, it was not established that the Giegers were relying on the income from foster care services to support their family. Rather, in the context of that statement and the Giegers legal position during the course of their appeal, the reference was most likely made in the context that the hiring of an attorney, with related expense, in prosecuting the first case, including an appellate proceeding, caused an adverse financial effect, which is understandable. That does not constitute credible, persuasive evidence that the Giegers were relying upon foster care services as income to support their own family and themselves in violation of any Department rule. Mrs. Gieger, indeed, testified under oath that they did not rely upon foster care income to support their family. Her testimony and that of others showing that they have successfully operated a well- managed, licensed home for a substantial period of time, shows that the Petitioners are financially capable of operating safely and successfully under a new license. There is no persuasive evidence to the contrary. The greater weight of the credible evidence is persuasive in establishing that the Giegers provide quality therapeutic foster care and have not engaged in the abuse with which they are charged. Even J.D. expressed the desire to come back and live with the Giegers and, after he reached 18 years of age, he did so. This certainly does not support the existence of abuse. Moreover, Earnest Thomas, J.D.'s guardian ad litem established that the Giegers provided J.D. with excellent care. He was a frequent visitor in their home and paid close attention to J.D.'s well-being during times pertinent to this case. Further, the caseworker, Sheila Donato, was the person who took J.D. from the Giegers' home when he was removed by the Department. On this occasion she stated that he was tearful and crying when he left the Giegers' home and asked if he would be able to come back to their home for Christmas. There were no bruises or other evidence that he had been harmed in any way. She established that the fact that he returned to the Giegers home after he turned 18 years of age is evidence that he had never been abused while there. After the Giegers' foster care license had been relinquished voluntarily by them under the above-referenced circumstances, Tyler's parents executed "guardianship papers" placing Tyler in the custody or guardianship of the Giegers and they continue to allow Tyler to reside in their home. The Department maintains that this was an illegal placement because the Giegers were not a licensed foster care facility at that time and had not secured a court order allowing Tyler to be in their guardianship. The circumstances were, however, that Ms. Giegers' mother was the attorney who prepared the guardianship papers for the Giegers and for Tyler's parents to execute. She rendered an opinion to them that that was sufficient to justify allowing Tyler to remain in the Giegers' home. Ms. Gieger testified that she knew of other teachers and other individuals who had used similar documents to establish a basis to take custody of a child in their home. She believed that what she was doing was legal. There was no intent by her, or Mr. Gieger, to engage in any kind illegal custody, guardianship or circumvention of the foster care licensure requirements, or any other illegal act. There is no evidence that Tyler had been adjudicated dependent and subject to the custody of the Department.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services granting a foster home license to the Petitioners, authorizing their operation as a therapeutic foster home. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerri A. Blair, Esquire Lockett & Blair Post Office Box 130 Tavares, Florida 32778 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John J. Copelan, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert A. Butterworth, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of acts and omissions to justify the revocation of his license to operate a family foster home, pursuant to Section 409.175(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner licensed Respondent to operate a family foster home from June 22, 2000, until May 15, 2001, at which time Petitioner revoked Respondent's license. The only foster children placed with Petitioner were Ju. K. (Ju.) and J. K. (J.), who are brothers. During the majority of the period in question, Ju. was 16 years old and J. was 17 years old. The boys were adopted at infancy. However, their adoptive mother died when they were young. The adoptive father remarried, but died a few years later, in January 1999. The stepmother never adopted the children, and, shortly after the death of their adoptive father, she turned over the two children to foster care. Respondent had been a friend of the stepmother since the mid-1980s and, through her, had met the adoptive father. Respondent became close with the couple and their children, whom he often visited on holidays. Learning that at least one of the boys had had problems in foster care, Respondent decided to qualify to become their foster father. At the time, Respondent was 40 years old and single and had not raised any other children. However, Respondent took the training courses required for licensing as a foster parent. After Respondent obtained his foster parent license, Project Teamwork for Kids, which is the private entity in Brevard County that recruits, trains, and licenses foster parents and places foster children with these parents, placed Ju. and J. with Respondent. J. began to live with Respondent in January 2000, and Ju. joined him in June 2000. During the summer of 2000, relations among Respondent, J., and Ju. were good. They took vacations and settled into their new lives during a period relatively free of stressful demands. Respondent asked Project Teamwork 4 Kids representatives not to start any family therapy during the summer and, once school started, asked that they again defer the initiation of such services. Respondent was aware that Ju. had been diagnosed with dissociative personality disorder, but believed that a normal home life would ameliorate this condition. During the summer, Respondent was concerned with the high school to which Ju. had been assigned for ninth grade. Respondent convinced school officials to reassign Ju. to a different high school, but school officials warned Respondent that, due to the reassignment, they would not tolerate disruptive behavior from Ju. Respondent was satisfied with J.'s assignment for tenth grade because it was the same school from which he had earlier dropped out. At the start of the school year, Respondent required weekly progress reports from J.'s teachers. However, as J.'s grades improved, Respondent dropped this requirement. During the period covered by this case, Respondent's relationship with J. was better than Respondent's relationship with Ju. Respondent and J. had a major disagreement arise at the end of October when J. returned home drunk from a homecoming celebration. A day or two later, after giving the matter considerable thought, Respondent discussed the matter with J. and imposed the punishment that Respondent would not provide his written consent for J. to obtain his driving learner's permit for six months, although Respondent would reconsider at three months. When J. learned of his punishment, he became irate and telephoned his case manager with Project Teamwork 4 Kids, Karen McCalla. He demanded that she remove him from Respondent's home. Ms. McCalla visited the home and spoke with J. alone for several hours, then Respondent, and then J. again alone. This home visit provides an early, but typical, example of the difference in perspectives of Respondent and Petitioner's witnesses. According to Respondent, Ms. McCalla arrived at the home, spoke with J. alone for several hours, spoke with Respondent, and then spoke with J. alone again. She then announced that Respondent should sign for J.'s learner's permit, but not allow him to drive for three months. Although he disagreed with the recommendation and felt that Ms. McCalla's recommendation had undercut his authority, Respondent complied with the request. Ms. McCalla's version is considerably different. Agreeing that J. was demanding that she remove him from Respondent's home, Ms. McCalla noted that J. complained generally that Respondent was "overbearing, overpowering and does not give [J.] any privacy." Focusing on the larger issues than merely the proper punishment for J.'s recent misbehavior, Ms. McCalla recommended that the family undergo family therapy. Ms. McCalla's version is credited. By Respondent's own account, Ms. McCalla spent "several hours" speaking with J. initially. Although underage drinking is a serious matter that may necessitate serious discussions, it is unlikely that Ms. McCalla and J. could have spent "several hours" on this single transgression. It is more likely that J. broadened his complaints in the manner described by Ms. McCalla. Respondent's contrary version either undermines his credibility as a witness or, if sincere, his competence as a foster parent. During the fall, Respondent's relationship with Ju. deteriorated. In general, Respondent's nascent parental skills were insufficient to meet the needs of Ju. When a conventional menu of incentives and disincentives failed to produce the desired results, Respondent grew increasingly frustrated, but declined to take advantage of the support resources available to him through Project Teamwork 4 Kids and its contractors. Instead, Respondent, alone, proceeded with his own disciplinary scheme, intensifying his disciplinary measures each time that less intense measures failed. Eventually, conflict between Respondent and Ju. escalated, and the domestic situation became unbearable for both of them. For instance, at school, Respondent was legitimately concerned that Ju. not jeopardize his placement at the high school to which he had been assigned due to Respondent's efforts. Worried about Ju.'s associations at school, especially due to Ju.'s poor school associations in the past, Respondent required Ju. to sign into the library immediately after eating lunch, so he would not have the chance to socialize with his peers. If Ju. failed to sign in, a teacher was to telephone Respondent, who would go to school to find Ju. By Respondent's admission, he enforced this arrangement for four to six weeks. Respondent was adamant that Ju. not date until he was 16 years old. This was a legitimate concern due to sexual behaviors that Ju. had displayed prior to his arrival in Respondent's home. Early in the school year, while Ju. was still 15 years old, Respondent overheard him speaking on the telephone with a girl from school. Respondent interrupted the conversation and asked Ju. to ask the girl if her mother were home. Finding that she was, Respondent asked to speak to the mother. Explaining to the mother that Ju. was not allowed to go on one-on-one dates until he reached 16 years of age, Respondent, by his own testimony, managed to agitate and offend the mother. Respondent admitted that Ju. became upset because he had considered the girl his girlfriend. On another occasion, Respondent required that Ju. end a relationship with a girl at school. Without detailing any concerns about sexual activity, Respondent explained his intervention by noting that Ju. had taken another boy's girlfriend, who seems to have not been suitable for Ju.--in Respondent's opinion. At home, numerous times Respondent employed more intense strategies when conventional disciplinary interventions failed to produce the desired results. For instance, when Ju. persisted in viewing sexually unsuitable material on the television in his room, Respondent removed the bedroom door, thus depriving Ju. of all privacy. Also, when Ju. persisted in abusing and overusing the telephone, even after being placed on telephone restriction, Respondent removed the handsets when he left the home, leaving the boy without telephone service in the home, although he could walk outside the apartment to a neighbor or a pay phone. Gradually, frustration erupted into physical confrontations. Twice, Respondent ripped T-shirts off the back of the boy during angry exchanges. Once, Respondent lightly slapped the boy on the mouth when he swore at Respondent. Twice, Respondent intentionally damaged audio equipment used by Ju. For each of these actions, Respondent devised transparent stories to cover up his failure to handle Ju.'s transgressions in a positive, effective manner. As the above incidents suggest, Respondent sought to impose a level of control over Ju. that was unsuitable for Ju.'s age and the circumstances of the relationship that existed between Respondent and Ju. Lacking both experience and maturity, Respondent obstinately dug in deeper each time his discipline failed to produce the desired result. Never lacking in good motives, Respondent lacked the resources needed for the difficult parenting task that Ju. presented, and Respondent exacerbated the situation by refusing to accept the assistance of professionals who might have been able to help him with Ju. Over time, even Respondent's innocuous behavior- modification techniques became counterproductive. For instance, Respondent routinely insisted that he and a child not go to sleep without first resolving any conflicts that may have arisen. Although a salutary policy, if applied with discretion, Respondent's overbearing implementation of this policy intensified hostilities, rather than defused them. An example of the injudicious use of this policy took place in early February 2001 when Respondent and Ju. got into an argument over an uncompleted homework assignment. Respondent warned Ju. that Petitioner lacked sufficient beds to accommodate Ju. at the time and that, if Ju. did not compose himself, Respondent would call the police to have Ju. removed from Respondent's home. This was especially hurtful to a child who had already known the pain of abandonment and abuse. Trying to defuse the confrontation, Ju. demanded time to step outside and cool off, but Respondent, insistent on a resolution on his terms, ordered Ju. to remain inside until Respondent had finished talking to him. By March 2001, Project Teamwork 4 Kids representatives had tried to intervene on at least two occasions in recent weeks, but Respondent had become increasingly resistant to what he viewed as interference from caseworkers with Ju. and J. By this time, Ju. wanted out of the home, and Respondent wanted him out of the home. On March 28, 2001, Project Teamwork 4 Kids removed Ju. from Respondent's home. About six weeks later, Project Teamwork 4 Kids also removed J. from Respondent's home. Petitioner proved some of its specific allegations and failed to prove others, but, as the Administrative Law Judge noted at the final hearing, the basic issue in this case is whether Petitioner can prove that Respondent has committed an intentional or negligent act materially affected the health or safety of children in his home. Petitioner has met its burden with respect to Ju. Ju. would have been a considerable challenge to a person with considerable parenting experience and skills. Respondent lacked both, but, knowing Ju.'s special needs, nonetheless sought the responsibility of serving as Ju.'s foster father. As the situation worsened, Respondent lacked the insight to avail himself of the resources offered to him and Ju. Instead, Respondent resorted to ineffective disciplinary strategies that eventually deteriorated into angry outbursts, culminating in Respondent's angry and desperate threat to end the placement itself--a most injurious act, given Ju.'s circumstances and dissociative personality disorder. Although it is clear that Respondent assumed a very difficult undertaking, his incompetent discharge of these responsibilities, coupled with his obstinate refusal to accept readily available help from others with greater training and experience, justifies the revocation of his family foster home license.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order revoking Respondent's family foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 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 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Deborah Guller Department of Children and Family Services 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 502 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Samuel D. Lopez Samuel D. Lopez, P.A. 629 Southeast Fifth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Alan Siegel 500 Northwest 34th Street, Apartment #105 Pompano Beach, Florida 33064
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should revoke Respondents' foster home license based on violations of section 409.175(9), Florida Statutes (2014), and provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-13 alleged in the Notice of Intent to Revoke Foster Home License dated April 16, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing foster care parents and foster homes pursuant to section 409.175.2/ Respondents are foster care parents in a foster care home licensed as Provider FSFN ID #100032652, the therapeutic foster home at issue in this proceeding.3/ A.A., an eight-year-old child, was placed into Respondent's foster home in April 2014.4/ On the afternoon of September 4, 2014, Respondent Cherie Iturriaga took A.A. and her two grandchildren to a shopping center. When they were ready to leave, A.A. refused to get into the family van. Mrs. Iturriaga testified that she tried, for approximately ten to 15 minutes, to persuade A.A. to get into the vehicle, but he refused. She became very frustrated, yelled at A.A. to get into the van, and began to back the van out of the parking space while A.A. was standing next to the van's open door.5/ A passerby called 911 to report that Mrs. Iturriaga—— who the passerby characterized as A.A.'s "grandmother"——was attempting to make A.A. get into the vehicle against his will. The passerby told A.A. "you don't have to get in the van if you don't want to." Mrs. Iturriaga also called 911 to report that A.A. would not get into her vehicle. She told the 911 dispatcher that she was not staying for him, and that she was "going home." The dispatcher told her that because the child was supposed to be in her care, she had to stay with him, and that officers already were on the way to that location. Nonetheless, Mrs. Iturriaga drove away and left A.A. in the parking lot with the passerby, who Mrs. Iturriaga characterized, in testimony at the hearing, as a "random person." The evidence does not clearly establish whether Mrs. Iturriaga left A.A. in the parking lot for "five to ten minutes," as she claimed, or for as much as 20 to 30 minutes, as indicated by other evidence in the record. Regardless, it is undisputed that she drove away from the parking lot and left A.A. in the company of a stranger. At some point, Mrs. Iturriaga returned to the parking lot to pick up A.A., but he was not there. She called 911, and the dispatcher confirmed that A.A. had been taken to the Pembroke Pines Police Department. Mrs. Iturriaga went to the police department to pick up A.A. There, she was arrested and charged with child neglect without great bodily harm, a third-degree felony; this charge ultimately was dropped. A.A. was not physically harmed as a result of being left in the parking lot. The evidence establishes that approximately 45 days before the September 4, 2014, incident, Mrs. Iturriaga requested that Citrus remove A.A. from Respondents' foster home within 30 days; however, he was not timely removed. When the incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred, A.A. was immediately removed from Respondents' foster home. Another child, J.O., who was approximately 14 years old at the time of the incident, was placed in Respondents' foster home approximately two and one-half years before the incident. Since then, J.O. has formed very close bonds with both Respondents, particularly Mr. Iturriaga. At the time of the hearing, J.O. had not been removed from Respondents' home and continued to reside with them. J.O. does not wish to be removed from Respondents' home. Eric Sami serves as the guardian ad litem for J.O., and has done so for the past three and one-half years. Mr. Sami testified, persuasively, that when he was assigned to J.O.'s case, J.O. was a very withdrawn, depressed, socially unstable child who had been moved through several different foster homes, and who was academically struggling. Since being placed in Respondents' home, J.O. has flourished. He has made friends, his academic performance has dramatically improved, and he is no longer depressed and socially unstable. According to Mr. Sami, Respondents have treated J.O. as if he were their own child, including taking him on family vacations and involving him in all holiday celebrations. Mr. Iturriaga participates in parent- teacher conferences for J.O. and has taken an interest in J.O.'s school work and in helping him improve his academic performance. Sami also testified, credibly, that in the short amount of time in which A.A. lived in Respondents' home, he was an extremely disruptive force, bullying J.O. and Respondents' grandchildren and killing ducks in front of Respondents' granddaughter——an event that was extremely traumatic for her to witness. Sami observed, and the undersigned agrees, that it is fundamentally unfair for J.O. to suffer the consequences of Respondents' license revocation due to an event that was precipitated by A.A.'s extreme, ongoing misbehavior before he was removed from the home. Because Sami and J.O.'s therapist, Fred Leon, believed so strongly that removing J.O. from Respondents' home would have very substantial negative consequences for J.O., they advocated to Petitioner and Citrus to allow Respondents to keep their foster home license and to keep J.O. in their home. However, that did not dissuade Citrus from recommending that Petitioner revoke Respondents' license. In October 2014, J.O.'s placement was changed from foster care in Respondents' home to non-relative placement in Respondents' home. Because revocation of Respondents' license would require J.O. to be removed from Respondents' foster home, this placement change was necessary in order for J.O. to remain in the home. However, this placement change is not without negative consequences. J.O. remains in Respondents' home but they do not receive any monetary allowance for his care,6/ so they are placed in the position of supporting him without receiving any financial assistance through the foster care system. Thus, the consequence of revoking Respondents' license is that if J.O. remained in the foster care system, he would have to be moved to a licensed foster home. If he were to stay in Respondents' home in a non-relative placement, Respondents would not receive any monetary assistance through the foster care system to help with his support. Respondents' fervently wish to keep J.O. in their home, even without financial assistance through the foster care system, due to the strong emotional bond they have with him and because of the remarkable social and academic strides he has made while in their care. However, Mr. Iturriaga testified, persuasively, that this situation imposes a financial hardship on them, which, in turn, penalizes J.O. That Respondents wish to continue to provide a nurturing home for J.O., despite the financial hardship, is strong evidence that they have J.O.'s best interests at heart and that they would continue to provide the same stable, nurturing environment for him that they have provided for more than two and one-half years. As noted above, the criminal charges against Mrs. Iturriaga were dropped. Nonetheless, employees of Citrus testified that because there was an open child abuse investigation with verified findings, they could not recommend that Respondents' foster home continue to be licensed. Petitioner presented the testimony of Sonia De Escobar, licensing manager of Petitioner's Circuit II foster care program. Ms. De Escobar testified that Petitioner is seeking to revoke Respondents' license in part due to concern for the safety of children who may be placed in Respondents' foster home in the future. De Escobar noted that it is not uncommon for children in the dependency system to "misbehave,"7/ and Petitioner is concerned about Respondents' ability to deal with child misbehavior in the future. However, the evidence establishes that Respondents successfully cared for eight foster children over a six-year period and never had any problems dealing with child misbehavior until the incident involving A.A. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that A.A. was extremely aggressive and engaged in behavior that seriously disrupted Respondents' home environment. Because of A.A.'s extreme behavior, Respondents previously had given Citrus the required 30-day notice. However, Citrus did not timely remove A.A. from Respondents' home and the incident giving rise to this proceeding thereafter ensued. As noted above, there is no dispute that Mrs. Iturriaga intentionally left A.A. with a complete stranger for some period of time. In doing so, she endangered his health and safety, in violation of section 409.175(9)(a)1. However, the undersigned finds that mitigating circumstances in this case militate against revoking Respondents' foster home license. Specifically, Respondents enjoyed a spotless record as foster parents before the incident involving A.A. Further——and very importantly——they have fostered a very successful, nurturing, long-term parental relationship with J.O. that will be jeopardized if their foster home license is revoked. Finally, it is undisputed that A.A.'s behavior was extremely aggressive, disrespectful, and disruptive throughout the time he was placed in Respondents' home. On September 4, 2014, his behavior finally caused Mrs. Iturriaga to "snap."8/ Although her actions unquestionably were inappropriate and affected A.A.'s health and safety, the evidence indisputably shows that this was a one-time incident that occurred while Mrs. Iturriaga was under significant duress, and that, under any circumstances, A.A. was not injured. The undersigned further notes Citrus' role in this incident. As the child placing agency, Citrus is charged with placing foster children in foster homes, and with removing them when circumstances warrant. As discussed above, in July 2014, Respondents gave Citrus the required 30-day notice for transitioning A.A. out of their home. However, Citrus failed to timely meet its obligation to remove A.A. from Respondents' home and this incident subsequently occurred. Had Citrus met its obligation to timely remove A.A. from Respondents' home, this incident would not have occurred. Thus, Citrus is not without blame in this matter. The undersigned further notes that if Respondents were allowed to keep their license, Citrus, as the child placing agency, is obligated under the Bilateral Agreement to consult with Respondent before placing children in their home. This consultation process presumably would help ensure that children having extreme behavioral problems are not placed in Respondents' home in the future. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that allowing Respondents to keep their foster home license would enable them to continue their close, nurturing relationship with J.O., and, further, likely would not result in any danger or other adverse effect on the health and safety of foster children who may be placed in their home in the future.9/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Intent to Revoke Foster Home License issued on April 16, 2015, and imposing a corrective action plan on Respondents' foster home license to the extent deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 17th day of February, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Margaret Speer (Speer), received her initial foster care license from Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), on March 18, 1991. Speer resided at 1501 Windorah Way, West Palm Beach, Florida 33411, on that date. On March 18, 1992, HRS renewed Speer's foster care license. At that time Speer was living at 992 Whipporwill Way, West Palm Beach, Florida. On April 14, 1992, after moving to 12212-3 Sagharbor Court, Wellington, Florida, Speer received a foster home license for the new address. In October 1992, Speer received a foster home license for her residence at 129 Gregory Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. In June or July of 1992, Speer moved to 5380 Gene Circle, West Palm Beach, Florida. HRS never issued a foster home license to Speer at this address and the residence was not inspected by the local health department. In September 1993, Speer moved to 738 Carissa Drive, Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411. On October 18, 1993, the Health Department inspected Speer's home at 783 Carissa Drive, Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411, and found it to be unsatisfactory for use as a foster home for children. Speer moved to 4852-C Orleans Circle, West Palm Beach, Florida. She received a foster home license for that residence on October 31, 1993. At the date of the final hearing, Speer was living at 515 North 10th Street, Lake Worth, Florida. It is important that foster children have stability in their lives, including the location of their residence. Speer's frequent changes of residence could have a detrimental effect on the foster children in her care as noted by an HRS children and families counselor who visited Speer's homes over 17 times from June 1992 to October 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Margaret Speer's application for renewal of her foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 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 9th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1769 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: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not necessary. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's letter did not delineate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Paragraphs 1-2: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine M. Linton Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 South Sapodilla West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Margaret Speer 515 North 10th Street Lake Worth, Florida 33460 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
