The Issue Should Petitioner revoke the foster home license held by Respondent for the alleged use of excessive corporal punishment against a foster child cared for in Respondent's home?
Findings Of Fact In accordance with Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, Petitioner licenses family foster homes. At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent has held a family foster home license issued by Petitioner. As a condition of her licensure as a foster parent, Respondent received training in Model Approach to Partnerships and Parenting (MAPP). The MAPP training addressed the imposition of discipline directed to foster children in Respondent's care. The disciplinary policy included a prohibition against disciplinary practices involving corporal punishment. In particular the disciplinary policy prohibited slapping or spanking a child. (DCF Exhibit No. 9) By signing a copy of that disciplinary policy Respondent acknowledged her understanding and agreement to abide by those terms on May 28, 1999. Generally, by stipulation between counsel, Respondent concedes the existence of the policy prohibiting slapping or spanking a child in her care. Ms. Stacey Cleveland has responsibility in Petitioner's District 3 related to foster home licensing. Ms. Cleveland provided MAPP training to Respondent, including training on discipline and the prohibition against the use of corporal punishment. In 1997, Ms. Cleveland had a specific discussion with Respondent concerning the prohibition against the use of corporal punishment in caring for foster children. At that time Respondent stated her agreement with the prohibition against the use of corporal punishment directed to foster children. From April 23, 1999, through December 30, 1999, A.H. and B.H. lived in Respondent's home as foster children. On December 30, 1999, A.H. was three years old and B.H. was five years old. On December 30, 1999, A.H. and B.H. were involved in a supervised visit with their natural mother at the Petitioner's Live Oak, Florida office. During the visit the natural mother took A.H. to the bathroom and discovered bruises on his buttocks. The natural mother immediately reported the discovery to Petitioner's personnel. Julia Johnson and Steven Lampros, Petitioner's employees, both observed the bruises on A.H.'s buttocks. Mr. Lampros took photographs of the bruises. (DCF Exhibits Nos. 4 through 6) Respondent caused the bruising to A.H.'s buttocks by imposing corporal punishment on A.H. at a time prior to December 30, 1999. This act was contrary to the prohibition against the use of corporal punishment by spanking. Respondent knowingly violated those terms. Respondent's testimony that A.H. may have received the bruises by jumping off the sofa and falling on the wooden arm of that furniture; jumping off the sofa landing on his buttocks on the floor; being pushed by another foster child from a toy jeep or being pushed against the bathroom door by B.H., his brother, is not persuasive. The finding that A.H. was bruised on his buttocks when Respondent spanked him is corroborated by the deposition testimony of Dr. Howard Rogers, a Board-Certified physician in general pediatrics. Dr. Rogers routinely examines children who are the alleged victims of abuse. Dr. Rogers examined A.H. on December 30, 1999. He recalls the examination based upon his report rendered concerning the examination and the photos made by Mr. Lampros on December 30, 1999. Dr. Rogers does not believe that the bruises on A.H.'s buttocks were accidental in nature given the intensity of the bruising and the linear shape of some of the bruises. Within a reasonable degree of medical certainty Dr. Rogers did not find the bruises to be consistent with any form of trauma other than corporal punishment. According to Dr. Rogers corporal punishment was the more likely cause of the bruising. Dr. Rogers' opinion concerning the appearance of the bruises is credited.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order revoking the family foster home license held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2000.
The Issue May the Department of Children and Family Services revoke Petitioners' foster home license for cause?
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Ray and Gloria Hill have operated a licensed foster care home in Gadsden County, Florida, for approximately two years. Their home is licensed by DCF through Boys and Girls Town of Tallahassee, a private, not-for-profit organization which provides foster home placements for DCF. During all or part of these two years, Petitioners had two teenage girls placed in their foster care by Boys and Girls Town. These girls were J.B. (twelve years old) and A.W. (fourteen years old). Two altercations allegedly occurred between J.B. and Gloria Hill, who were the only witnesses to either event. J.B. resided with the Hills for the better part of the two years. Two days before Christmas 2000, Mrs. Hill had an argument with J.B. as a result of J.B. having opened every holiday-wrapped Christmas present under the tree. When Mrs. Hill asked her if she had done this, J.B. would not respond. There is no dispute that J.B. had Chinese food, prepared by Mrs. Hill, in her hands at that point. J.B. denied throwing the food at Mrs. Hill and asserted that Mrs. Hill slapped the food out of J.B.'s hands, and that, after several misses, Mrs. Hill slapped J.B.'s face with an open hand, at which point, J.B. began hitting Mrs. Hill. Mrs. Hill denied "initiating" the violence, but it is uncontested and both witnesses testified to hitting each other several times at that point. Mrs. Hill requested that night that J.B. immediately be removed from her care. A mark was found on J.B.'s face when she was removed from the Hills' home by authorities that night. There is no clear evidence as to what caused the mark. According to J.B.'s initial testimony at the final hearing, Gloria Hill, in a rage, pushed J.B.'s face into the dashboard airbag area of a car driven by Mrs. Hill while J.B. was riding in the front passenger seat, causing J.B.'s lip to bleed. Gloria Hill denied doing so. J.B. did not report this alleged incident to anyone for many months. She only reported it the night she was removed from the Hills' home after the Christmas 2000 incident. After J.B.'s removal from the Hills' home, and after interrogation by Boys and Girls Town social worker, Sydney Smith, J.B. recanted her accusation that Mrs. Hill had deliberately pushed her face into the dashboard airbag area of the car. At that time, J.B. stated to Mrs. Smith that Mrs. Hill had, in fact, extended her arm to keep J.B. from falling forward into the dashboard and windshield when Mrs. Hill was forced to suddenly apply the brakes to avoid a collision. Accordingly, on the basis of the prior inconsistent statement, J.B.'s testimony about the dashboard incident is not credited as a true account, and the veracity of her version of the Christmas 2000 incident is thrown into doubt. A.W. lived with Mr. and Mrs. Hill for only part of the two years that J.B. was with them. In August 2000, contrary to Mrs. Hill's prior instructions, A.W. showed J.B. an unflattering internet jailhouse photograph of J.B.'s natural mother. The printout of this photograph also revealed J.B.'s natural mother's criminal record, which J.B. did not yet know about at that time. Although A.W. testified with less clarity than might be wished, her most coherent and credible version of subsequent events is that Mrs. Hill swung at her three times with the paper computer printout and one of those swings made contact with A.W.'s face. A.W. also asserted that Mrs. Hill slapped her once in the face with her open hand before A.W. began striking and kicking Mrs. Hill. A.W. testified that she did not know if Mrs. Hill had been trying to grab her or hit her, but that Mrs. Hill's hands were "in my face." J.B. was present during this altercation, and she corroborated A.W.'s assertion that Mrs. Hill slapped A.W. before A.W. struck Mrs. Hill. Once again, Mrs. Hill denied "initiating" any violence, but she offered no other explanation of her actions, and no specific denial that she hit A.W. with the computer photograph before the general fight broke out. It is not disputed, however, that Mr. Hill, who was in another room, heard the commotion between Mrs. Hill and A.W. over the photograph, and came to Mrs. Hill's rescue by bodily removing A.W. to another area of the house. Apparently, neither A.W. nor J.B. thought Mr. Hill's actions were out of line, although he allegedly touched A.W.'s stomach when he carried her out of the room to cool-off. A.W.'s testimony that Mr. Hill hung her upside down but placed her upright on her feet without hurting her is incredible, but also immaterial, because even A.W. admits that she was out of control, that she was unharmed by Mr. Hill, and that Mr. Hill placed her upright on her feet once she was out of striking distance of Mrs. Hill. Mrs. Hill called Boys and Girls Town and demanded that A.W. be removed the night of the incident of the photograph, due to A.W.'s violent behavior. After counseling with both of them, Boys and Girls Town authorities talked Mrs. Hill into keeping A.W. until she could be placed elsewhere. A.W.'s stay with the Hills extended to two weeks, with Boys and Girls Town's approval. This indicates to the undersigned that Boys and Girls Town's social worker had no real-world concern for A.W.'s health and safety while in the Hills' care at that time. After she was removed from the Hills' foster care, A.W. wrote a letter to Mrs. Hill thanking her for her care and apologizing for hitting Mrs. Hill. At the final hearing, A.W. insisted this missive was not inconsistent with her testimony that Mrs. Hill hit her first and she merely retaliated. The removal of J.B. near Christmas 2000, resulted in either a foster care license revocation investigation or child abuse registry investigation or both types of investigation by DCF. Moreover, it appears that Boys and Girls Town mounted an investigation of its own. The outcome of any abuse investigation was not presented at the final hearing herein. However, after DCF's licensing authorities determined that Petitioner's foster care license would not be renewed, another DCF employee contacted Mrs. Smith of Boys and Girls Town, seeking to place a third child, L.T., with Petitioners. Due to her sensitivity to confidentiality issues, Mrs. Smith gave very vague information to the DCF placement employee concerning the status of one or more of the investigations against Petitioners. DCF then either directly placed L.T. with Petitioners or placed L.T. with Petitioners through Boys and Girls Town. The placement of L.T. with Petitioners after A.W. and J.B. had complained against them does not repudiate or mitigate the foregoing Findings of Fact concerning Mrs. Hill's use of corporal punishment. The placement of L.T. with the Hills was purely a mistake which was corrected by the removal of L.T. from Petitioners' care soon thereafter. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hill testified that they had severe behavioral problems with L.T. while he was with them. It is not clear whether they asked for his removal from their home or not.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioners are entitled to the renewal of their foster care license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioners operated a shelter foster home in Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a license that was issued by the Department. Mr. Ezewike investigated allegations of neglect at the Petitioners' home. According to Mr. Ezewike, children residing at the home were left without adult supervision. Such children ranged in ages from a few months to teenager. Mr. Welch investigated allegations of verbal abuse against Petitioners. The report of these allegations was closed without classification. Thus the Petitioners were not identified as the perpetrators of verbal abuse. According to Mr. Blum, who also visited the home, children residing with the Petitioners were left without adult supervision. Mr. Blum observed that the interior of the house was dirty and messy. His report concluded that there were some indications of conditions hazardous to health as a result of the unkept home. Mr. Blum further observed that a refrigerator at the Grice home was encircled by a chain with a lock which prevented it from being opened. Mr. Blum also observed and overheard an interaction between Mr. Grice and some of the foster children. According to Mr. Blum, Mr. Grice used harsh and inappropriate language with the children. Jackie Hodge, supervisor of the licensing unit, received a report from another worker responsible for supervising the Grice foster home. Such report cited Mr. Grice for inappropriate and harsh language. According to Ms. Hodge, licensing standards, including the quality of care and supervision provided by foster parents, must be a part of the evaluation to determine the suitability of a home during a relicensing review. According to Ms. Hodge, the Department does not permit foster parents to be verbally abusive, including harsh or inappropriate language, with the children in their care. Ms. Hodge further explained that the condition of, and cleanliness of, the home are also part of a relicensing evaluation. Based upon the Department's practice, the failure to meet any of the licensing standards is grounds for denying a renewal of license. Ms. Hodge recommended that the Petitioners' home not be relicensed. Petitioners were timely notified of the Department's denial and timely requested an administrative review.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying Petitioners' request for licensure renewal. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 6th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish 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 6th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4951 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioners: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Hilda Fluriach District 11 Legal Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Willie and Geraldine Grice 18830 N.W. 43rd Avenue Carol City, Florida 33055 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Bonita Jones-Peabody The Executive Building 3000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to renewal of a foster care license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Betty Stewart, was licensed by the Department to operate a foster care home on August 5, 1991. Thereafter, until the instant matter arose, Petitioner received a renewal of this license. On August 18, 1997, the Department notified Petitioner that her license would not be renewed. The decision was based upon Petitioner's alleged failure to meet the minimum standards for foster parenting. More specifically, the denial alleged concerns with Petitioner which included: Standard housekeeping standards. Counselors have reported that your home was not kept clean. They noted a stale odor, and observed clothes piled up and roach infestations. Lack of stability in housing. The licensing record indicates that you have had at least five different residences since you were licensed in 1991. Constant moving does not provide stability for the children placed with you. Inadequate medical care for a child in our home. The counselor for a child who had been in your home indicated that you failed to get timely dental care for a child in your home that resulted in the child needing to have a tooth extracted. Additionally it was reported that you did not follow-up with getting a dermatologist's prescription filled for this same child. Concerns that your son was dealing in illegal drugs. While your son did not live with you, he was in and out of your home and having contact with the foster children in your home, which in fact could have a potentially negative impact on them. You did admit to Laura Williams, the foster parent liaison, that you were aware that he was dealing drugs. During the time of Petitioner's licensure, she was licensed at five different locations. That is, she moved from one property to another and relicensed the new location, five times in six years. Additionally, during the time of licensure, Petitioner received a "provisional license" on four occasions. A provisional license is issued when the applicant must take additional measures to comply with all licensure requirements. On four occasions the Department worked with the Petitioner so that she would obtain licensure. For each license, Petitioner executed an agreement to provide substitute care for dependent children as prescribed by the Department. This agreement required Petitioner to comply with all rules implemented for foster care homes and specifically required Petitioner to report any illness of a child to the Department. In one instance, the Petitioner failed to seek immediate dental care for a child placed in her home. The dental problem was made known to the Department when the child was caught shoplifting Oragel, an over-the-counter product used to relieve toothache. Petitioner also did not compel a child to attend counseling sessions with a licensed therapist. Petitioner was responsible for assuring that the child be given transportation to and from such sessions. Although limited to two children by license restriction, Petitioner typically had more than two children placed in her home. Given the shortage for foster care homes, the Department routinely waived the limit and placed additional children with Petitioner even though she was ill-equipped to deal with the extra children. The Petitioner's son, who is now deceased, did not reside with Petitioner during the final licensure period. Although he resided in the community near her home, there is no evidence to support a finding that he was dealing drugs from the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for license renewal as a foster care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Colleen Farmsworth Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Betty Stewart, pro se 812 Foresteria Drive Lake Park, Florida 33403
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s request for a foster home license should be denied due to her alleged failure to comply with foster care licensing requirements.
Findings Of Fact Since 2006, Petitioner has held a foster care license, issued by the Department through Citrus, which is a child placing agency ("CPA"). Since becoming a foster parent, there have never been any concerns raised as to the care Petitioner provided to the foster children. Every year, Petitioner entered into a Bilateral Service Agreement with Citrus. The Agreement identifies the responsibilities of both the foster parents and Citrus on behalf of the children served in the foster care program. Under the heading “Foster Parent Responsibilities to the CPA” the Bilateral Service Agreement provides that the foster parent is required: To notify the CPA immediately of a potential change in address, living arrangements, marital status, family composition (who is in the home), employment, significant health changes or any other condition that may affect the child’s well-being. To notify the CPA promptly of all contacts the family or any member of the home has with police or any law enforcement agencies. In the summer of 2010, Citrus sent a letter to all foster parents reminding them that all family members or visitors who frequent the home on a daily basis, or sleep overnight, or have constant contact with the foster children, must have background checks completed. In the fall of 2010, for the annual review for the upcoming year of 2011, Citrus conducted a home study, which included an announced visit and inspection of the home. The Citrus consultant who conducted the home study recorded that Warren Clark (Clark), Petitioner’s son, was living in the home. Petitioner’s daughter was listed as a family member that did not live in the home and was not a frequent visitor. She conducted a background screening on Clark, and discovered that Clark had been arrested twice for battery/aggravated assault charges in May, 2010. If Petitioner’s daughter had been listed as a household member or frequent visitor, the consultant would have conducted background screening on the daughter as well. During her announced visit, the consultant saw Clark’s room, and only noticed male belongings. She did not see any kind of female items, such as jewelry, makeup, or female clothing. Petitioner never reported Clark’s arrests to Citrus. At the hearing, she testified that she was unaware of her son’s arrests, and was only made aware of the arrests when the Citrus consultant told her about them. Her son testified that he had never told his mother about the arrests because he was embarrassed. The undersigned does not find this testimony credible, as it is self-serving in nature and is not plausible, given that Petitioner’s son lived with Petitioner and was arrested twice in one month. It was ultimately Petitioner’s duty to be informed of any involvement between a household member and law enforcement, and to promptly notify the Department. On January 27, 2011, a foster care licensing staffing was held. Petitioner agreed to have her son move out of her home, due to the nature of the arrests. To memorialize the agreement reached during the meeting, Petitioner signed a statement indicating that she would have her son move out of the foster home, and that she understood that if her daughter was going to be a frequent visitor, her daughter needed to be fingerprinted. The statement also indicated that any violation of this agreement might result in revocation of her foster home license. This statement was dated February 22, 2011. During the exit interviews of two of Petitioner’s foster care children, the children reported that Petitioner’s daughter lived at the foster home. Citrus and the Department conducted an unannounced home visit on March 10, 2011. Dulce Pupo, a Citrus Foster Care Licensing Supervisor, and Ada Gonzalez, a Department Licensing Specialist, conducted the visit. Present at the home were two foster children, Petitioner, Petitioner’s daughter, and a tutor for one of the foster children. One foster child, who was approximately 12 years old, told Ms. Gonzalez that Petitioner’s daughter lived in the home, and pointed out her bedroom. When Ms. Gonzalez approached the room that had been indicated, Petitioner asked her not to enter that room, because it was messy. Ms. Gonzalez entered the bedroom, and found items that belonged to a woman; she photographed women’s jewelry, skin products, perfumes, women’s clothing, women’s shoes, and a curling iron that she saw in the room. Petitioner told Ms. Gonzalez that the items were her daughter’s items, but that her daughter did not live at the foster home. On March 11, 2011, a staffing was held. Petitioner attended and admitted that her daughter was living at her home. At the hearing, Petitioner explained that during this staffing, she was very upset, and misspoke when she stated that her daughter lived in her foster home. She, did, however, admit that her daughter was a frequent visitor, and that she should have reported that fact to Citrus. On May 9, 2011, the renewal of Petitioner’s foster care license was denied by the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding that Petitioner violated section 409.175(9), Florida Statutes, and deny Petitioner’s request to renew her foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 27th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services, properly denied Gaye Brina Vestal's license application to operate a commercial day care facility, pursuant to Section 402.3055, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's legal name is "Gaye Brina Vestal." Respondent is married to "Tony L. Vestal" a/k/a "Tony L. Mitchell." The name on Tony's birth certificate is "Tony Mitchell." When he was eight years old, his mother married a man named "Vestal." Thereafter, Tony went by the last name "Vestal." He attended school, obtained a driver's license and a Social Security account number, married, and had children under the name "Vestal." When he divorced, he began using the name "Mitchell" and obtained a different Social Security account number and driver's license under the name "Mitchell." At some point, Tony married Gaye Brina (Respondent) under the name "Vestal." They then remarried under the name "Mitchell." Respondent tried using the name, "Mitchell" with Tony, but due to hostility from Tony's mother, Respondent elected to return to using the name "Vestal." She was unable to persuade Tony to return to using the name "Vestal." 1/ By a September 16, 1997, application for registration of a family day care home in her home on Sisco Street in Pamona Park, Respondent and Tony listed "Tony Vestal" as Respondent's husband with his "Vestal" Social Security Number. "Shirley Vestal," is listed as a character witness for each of them. The forms clearly show "Shirley Vestal" as Tony's "ex-wife" and as Respondent's "friend." Among her own past employments, Respondent claimed to have been the manager of a pizza parlor; she listed her supervisor there as "Tony Mitchell." She also listed another previous employment as being the "owner" of a different pizza parlor which closed in 1996. Both pizza parlors were named "Tony-O's Pizza." The Sisco Street property was shown as belonging to "Tony Mitchell." Either at this point, or later, while Respondent was operating under provisional day care home licenses, Dede Sharples, a Department employee with responsibility to oversee home day care licensing, became concerned as to the true identity of Respondent's husband. She asked Respondent whether "Tony-O's Pizza" had been named for Respondent's supervisor or Respondent's husband. While there is considerable disagreement between the two witnesses as to exactly what was said, and while Ms. Sharples' questioning may have been tenuous and Respondent's response may have been intended to be humorous, Respondent still left the Department representative with the impression that there were two different "Tony's." On October 16, 1997, the Department did a home inspection. Respondent thereafter corrected the Sisco Street location for fire inspection purposes. By a December 18, 1997, application for a family day care home license at her Sisco Street home, Respondent listed "Tony Lee Vestal" as a household member and listed the owner of the property as "Tony Mitchell." In reviewing the December 18, 1997, application, Ms. Sharples told Respondent that Respondent would need to have Mr. Mitchell sign a letter saying that Respondent had his permission to run a day care facility on his property. 2/ Respondent told Ms. Sharples that "Tony Mitchell" was a good friend that had gone to Indiana and then elsewhere and that he did not want his address given out. She further stated that her home was in Mitchell's name because she had damaged credit and had an oral agreement with Mitchell to pay on the house until it was paid for and then Mitchell would sign the house over to Respondent and Respondent's husband. Ms. Sharples cautioned Respondent that this was a dangerous practice which could leave Respondent with no house and no recourse to her money expenditure for the house. Respondent was granted two six-month provisional family day care home licenses while awaiting Florida Department of Law Enforcement screening and abuse registry screening of herself and "Tony Vestal." On January 12, 1998, the Department received a clear background check/screening on Respondent but no information concerning "Tony Vestal." On February 12, 1998, Ms. Sharples inspected the home on Sisco Street for a compliance check. Respondent was notified of items to correct. On March 9, 1998, the Department sent a certified letter to Respondent because it had not received any communication from her that the noncompliance items had been corrected in anticipation of a second compliance visit. On April 8, 1998, Ms. Sharples secured a copy of the deed to the Sisco Street address. It showed the property to be owned by "Tony Mitchell and Gaye Brina Mitchell, his wife." Respondent admitted to Ms. Sharples that Respondent once was married to "Tony Mitchell," but Respondent did not volunteer that "Tony Mitchell" and "Tony Vestal" were one and the same person. By a November 25, 1998, application for a commercial day care facility license on Grove Avenue in Crescent City, Respondent listed her name as "Gaye Brina Vestal," her address as a post office box, and the owners of the Grove Avenue real property as "Tony L. Mitchell" and herself as "Gaye Brina Mitchell." Respondent signed the application as "Gaye Brina Vestal." Also on November 25, 1998, Respondent submitted an application fee of $25.00 by a check drawn on the account of "L & M Falling Tree Service" signed by "Tony Mitchell." Ken Barnett processes commercial family day care facility license applications for the Department. He is Ms. Sharples' supervisor. On November 18, 1998, the Department sent Respondent a letter verifying that she had not renewed her family day care home license because she was applying for a commercial family day care facility license and informing her that her family day care home must close on December 31, 1998. Respondent asked Mr. Barnett when she would be licensed for a commercial family day care facility license. He replied that if the final inspection went all right, Respondent would be licensed within two weeks of December 31, 1998. As a result of her conversation with Mr. Barnett, Respondent did not timely renew her family day care home license. Her day care home license has since expired. 3/ At some point that is unclear from the record, the Department discovered that "Tony Vestal" and "Tony Mitchell" were one and the same person with two different driver's licenses and two different Social Security account numbers. As a result, on February 4, 1999, the Department denied Respondent's pending application for a commercial day care facility license. At some date that is unclear from the record, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement background screening and the abuse registry screening came back clear on Respondent, "Tony Vestal," and "Tony Mitchell," e.g. "Tony" under both Social Security numbers. Tony testified that he originally had used the name "Mitchell" to hide his children by his first wife so that his first wife would not take their children to Mexico. Tony testified that he never used his Social Security card for a job; he only used it "privately," to keep his ex-wife from finding him. As of the date of the disputed fact hearing, Tony had not notified the Federal Social Security Administration that he had two Social Security identities/accounts. Since the Department's denial, but prior to the disputed fact hearing, Tony's driver's license in the name "Vestal" had been turned-in to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) and his driver's license in the name of "Mitchell" had been revoked by that agency. 4/ Respondent asserted that DHSMV compromised what could have been harsher civil and/or criminal penalties upon its determination that Tony had no intent to defraud. However, Respondent introduced no corroborative evidence of this assertion. At all times material, Respondent knew about Tony's two Social Security cards and two driver's licenses in different names. Respondent and Tony signed all the departmental forms referred-to above pursuant to the penalty of perjury for not telling the truth thereon. Incredibly, Respondent testified that it did not occur to her that the use of different names on the documentation supporting her several applications would create confusion within the Department. Equally incredibly, Respondent testified that she had assumed that the preliminary background screenings and fingerprint checks would disclose all identities so that full disclosure would be made and all discrepancies explained.
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 denying Respondent's application for a commercial day care facility license. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1999, 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 2nd day of November, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent’s application for renewal of its child care facility license was untimely submitted; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact DCF is the state agency that licenses and regulates child care facilities in Florida. Small World is a licensed child care facility in Miami, Florida, that has been doing business at this location for at least several years. As a licensed child care facility, Small World undergoes at least three routine inspection visits a year by DCF. During its second routine evaluation in the summer of 2020, Small World was reminded by Alexis Stevens, former DCF Family Services Counselor, that its renewal application was due to be submitted to DCF at least 45 days prior to its license expiration on November 23, 2020. Ms. Stevens provided this courtesy reminder to prevent Small World from incurring a penalty for a late filing. Ms. Stevens, who had been Small World’s point of contact at DCF for several years, had no concern that Small World would be late because, in the past, Small World was never late, and it consistently filed all materials needed for renewal of its license. At the beginning of October 2020, Ms. Stevens advised Small World that DCF’s Miami office was closed to the public due to COVID-19 and directed Small World to mail its renewal application rather than hand- delivering it as it had done in the past. The owners of Small World were aware the renewal application needed to be submitted to DCF on or before October 9, 2020. Small World’s owner, Marcia Martorell, completed the renewal application packet on October 1, 2020. On the next day, her daughter mailed the application packet from the Miami post office to DCF’s Miami office by certified, return receipt requested, mail. They reasonably anticipated that, at most, delivery would occur within a few days and in plenty of time to avoid the October 9, 2020, deadline. According to the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) tracking record, the application package was signed for by an individual at the DCF Miami office on October 13, 2020. However, the actual “green card” receipt bears no signature, and instead is marked “CO19” (presumably for COVID-19) on October 15, 2020. DCF Secretary Assistant, Susan Freeman, received the package on October 13, 2020, from the DCF mailroom and date-stamped each page. Ms. Freeman does not know on what date the package arrived in the mailroom. Ms. Freeman testified that although the office was closed to the public, most days the staff came to the office to complete their assigned duties, including receiving checks and other mail, including license renewal packages. However, she also recalled that the office was completely closed to personnel for several days due to riots in Miami.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Aaron Feuer, Esquire Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N1014 Miami, Florida 33128-1740 For Respondent: Marcia Esther Martorell, pro se It's A Small World Academy, Inc. 2990 Northwest 81st Terrace Miami, Florida 33147
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 Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 2021. Marcia Esther Martorell It's A Small World Academy 2990 Northwest 81st Terrace Miami, Florida 33147 Aaron Feuer, Esquire Department of Children and Families 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N1014 Miami, Florida 33128-1740 Danielle Thompson, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Office of the General Counsel 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Javier Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Office of the General Counsel 2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Jimmie Ray Brown is, by occupation, normally a merchant seaman. However, pending a resolution of the situation forming the basis for this hearing, he is currently working ashore. Mr. Brown has custody and control, by court order, of two children, Linda Marie (Age 8) and James Henry (Age 5) Martin. Mr. Brown has filed for adoption of both children. A home study has been done and the natural mother of the children, who is presently in the penitentiary, has consented to the adoption. In Mr. Brown's opinion, only the home study report is holding up consummation of the adoption. No evidence to contradict this was submitted either by DHRS or the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), but so far, the petition has not been granted. Mr. Brown knows the Petitioner and requested her to live in his trailer home, located in Okaloosa County, to care for the two minor children while he is at sea. In order to do this properly, Petitioner, on January 14, 1985, applied for a license to run a foster care home. At that time, she was not living in Brown's home but, instead, was living with her sister- in-law in the house on the lot in front of Mr. Brown's trailer. When Petitioner filed her application for license as an foster parent, under the rules and regulations of DHRS, various investigative steps were taken including, among other things: a sexual abuse check, a foster home study, and a law enforcement registry records check. The abuse registry check, completed on January 31, 1985, indicated no record of abuse, neglect or exploitation was on file in the Florida Abuse Registry involving Ms. Robinson. The foster home inspection report from a sanitation standpoint was determined to be satisfactory on January 11, 1985; the physician's report on Petitioner, done on January 17, 1985, reflected that she was free from communicable diseases and in good physical condition her references were acceptable, and the home study report, entered by Mr. Thomas Goodwin on March 4, 1985, recommended that Petitioner be licensed as a foster parent by the State of Florida to care for James and Linda Martin in the trailer home furnished by Mr. Brown. All of this information was evaluated upon submission by Dorothy S. Turner, a program analyst in the program office of Respondent's Pensacola office. Her job includes the review of and recommendation on applications for licensing of foster Homes in that district. Based on the information submitted with Petitioner's application, Mrs. Turner concluded that Petitioner would be acting as a foster parent in Brown's home for two children, at least one of whom was not related to Mr. Brown. Based on this information, and because she did not have sufficient knowledge of Mr. Brown's status and living arrangements, applying the standards for foster home in DHRS Rule lOM-6.05, Mrs. Turner decided to grant a provisional license for a three-month period. Also, according to the information she had, there was no current proper petition for adoption pending at that time. Even though Mrs. Turner approved a three-month provisional license, her secretary prepared all the paperwork relative to the issuance of a standard one year license (non- provisional) and so notified the Petitioner. The file was forwarded to the District Supervisor without again being reviewed by Mrs. Turner, and the non-provisional license was issued along with all the collateral documentation. Once the non-provisional license had gone out, however, Mrs. Turner saw the completed work and was upset by the fact that the wrong license had been issued. At no time was it her intention to issue other than a three-month license. Approximately one week after the issuance of the original license, corrective action was taken and Petitioner was issued a three-month provisional license. Petitioner appealed this decision and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for resolution. However, prior to the DOAH hearing, a hearing was held in Circuit Court on April 30, 1985, at which, for reasons not put in evidence at this hearing, the Judge issued an order which, inter alia, directed that the children have no contact with the Petitioner and that she vacate Mr. Brown's home. Based on this order, Mrs. Turner did nothing further regarding Petitioner's license. She could have and she should have requested Petitioner return the provisional license on the basis of the court's order but did not do so. Petitioner has not made application for a new license subsequent to that time. The evidence indicates that at the time in question between January, 1985 and the time of the April 30 hearing, Petitioner was not living in Mr. Brown's trailer but, as was stated previously, in her sister-in-law's home in front of the trailer. The trailer was occupied by Mr. Brown and the two children. Petitioner would visit there and take care of the children when Mr. Brown was not present, and, during the Easter vacation in April, 1985, when the children were out of school, she did, in fact, for the one week period, live in the trailer with Mr. Brown and the children. Since a license can be issued only to a person living in the foster home, Mrs. Turner assumed that was where Petitioner was living, though this was not so. Based on the information available on the application form, and applying the standards set for evaluation of foster homes, Mrs. Turner could not have approved a one year license because Mr. Brown was living in the home with Linda Martin. Though he had filed a petition for her adoption the petition required amendment and was not, therefore, an "in process" petitioner. Because Mrs. Turner wanted additional clarification of Mr. Brown's status, she granted the three-month license. According to Mrs. Turner, her interpretation of the rule in question indicates that a non-resident can reside in the foster home only for 90 days. Since Mr. Brown was not a relative to Linda Martin, he therefore was required to vacate the property within 90 days or have a proper petition for adoption in process. In short, according to Mrs. Turner, all these questions regarding Mr. Brown's status appeared unanswered and Mr. Brown made no effort to explain or provide answers. It is clear that no one from DHRS asked him any questions either. Nonetheless, as a result of the lack of answers, Mrs. Turner was using the 90 days provisional license period to provide time for the unanswered questions to be resolved.. The decision was based entirely on the information contained in the application submitted by Ms. Robinson and by Mrs. Turner's or her subordinates' observations of the situation. Very little effort appears to have been made to clarify Mr. Brown's status or, for that matter, that of Ms. Robinson. No questions were asked of anyone whether Mr. Brown was going back to sea, and if so, when, and no attempt was made to verify whether or not Ms. Robinson was living in the house. Assumptions were made and decisions based on those assumptions which, unfortunately, were not verified or clarified. According to the GAL, Mrs. Phillips, the adoption of Linda Martin by Mr. Brown has not yet been granted. As GAL, Mrs. Phillips is required to advocate the best interests of the children for whom she works and does investigations, visits with the children and their caretakers, writes reports, and submits recommendations as to what she thinks is the best action to be taken on behalf of the children. In this case, Ms. Phillips, who is not employed by or affiliated with DHRS, talked with Mr. Brown and Petitioner on several occasions. One subject for discussion was the living arrangements of Brown and Petitioner. At the time of the first inquiry, Petitioner was living with her sister-in-law whose home as was stated previously, was located in front of Mr. Brown's trailer. In April of 1985, Petitioner told Mrs. Phillips she was living in Mr. Brown's trailer because it was convenient for taking care of the children. This is not inconsistent with Mr. Robinson's testimony that during the Spring vacation in April, 1985, for the one week period, she did live there but that at all other times, she did not live in Mr. Brown's trailer. Mrs. Phillips was familiar with Mr. Brown's seagoing activity. In their discussions, Mr. Brown indicated to her that he would be away four to six months out of the year. The remaining time, he said, he would live in the home with the children and when he was living there, Petitioner would move out. The four to six months of absence would not all be contiguous but might be split up over several trips. In the two reports submitted to the court as Guardian ad Litem on this case, Mrs. Phillips failed to address Petitioner's suitability as caretaker for these two children and no evidence was brought out at the hearing what her current opinion was. She did not indicate approval, but more significantly, neither did she indicate disapproval. As the advocate for the minor children, it seems only reasonable that if she did not approve of Petitioner, she would have said so since the best interests of the children were at stake. After Petitioner was ordered out of the Brown trailer in April, 1985, Mr. Brown made arrangements for another individual to care for the children. This individual has applied for a foster care license based on her status with the children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, deny Petitioner, Lydia Robinson, the one year foster care license. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 10th day of September, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William D. Barrow, Esq. P. O. Box 486 Crestview, Florida 32536 Linda K. Harris, Esq. District Legal Counsel 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32576 John O. Stapleton, Esq. 514 N. Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
