The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application to adopt or become the foster parent of T. D. and T. D.'s child K. W. should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Tina Poole, wishes to adopt or become the foster parent of T. D. and T. D.'s infant child, K. W. The Petitioner is 27 years old. The Petitioner has six biological children of her own. The Petitioner's biological children range in age from approximately 9 years old to approximately 2 years old. Four of the Petitioner's biological children live with the Petitioner on a full time basis. One of the Petitioner's biological children lives with the Petitioner six months of each year and with the child's father the other six months of the year. One of the Petitioner's biological children lives on a full time basis with the child's paternal grandmother. Each of the Petitioner's biological children has a different father. This is indicative of instability in the Petitioner's home environment. It also indicates that the Petitioner lacks emotional and psychological maturity. 2/ The Petitioner and T. D. met at a time when both of them were living in Lake City, Florida. T. D., is approximately 16 years old. T. D. has a biological child, K. W., who is approximately one year old. The Petitioner has known T. D. since September of 1992 and has developed a close personal relationship with T. D. The Petitioner was especially helpful to T. D. and supportive of T. D. during T. D.'s pregnancy and during the first few months after T. D.'s baby was born. When the Petitioner found out that T. D. was living in foster care, the Petitioner and T. D. spoke to someone at the Department's adoption unit to request that the Petitioner be allowed to adopt T. D. While that request was pending, the Petitioner moved to Miami. Once the Petitioner had settled into her home in Miami, she contacted someone in the Department's Miami office regarding the status of her request to adopt T. D. After reviewing the matter, the Department staff advised the Petitioner that they could not recommend approval of the adoption request, but that it might be possible for the Petitioner to be approved as a foster parent for T. D. and K. W. Thereupon, the Petitioner applied for a special foster care license to become a foster parent for T. D. and K. W. The Petitioner does not have a stable employment history. For large periods of time her only predictable income has been from AFDC. The Petitioner recently obtained part-time employment at a fast food restaurant, but there is no certainty as to how long the Petitioner will remain so employed. As of the time of the formal hearing, the Petitioner's regular monthly income sources were approximately as follows: 3/ Part-time employment $400.00 AFDC 422.00 Food stamps 400.00 TOTAL MONTHLY INCOME $1,222.00 As of the time of the hearing the Petitioner's monthly expenses for rent and electricity were approximately $450.00. The record in this case does not contain any information about the Petitioner's other expenses for caring for herself and her biological children. Visits to the Petitioner's home in Miami established that the children being cared for by the Petitioner were receiving good care. The Petitioner's home was well furnished 4/ and was adequate for the needs of the Petitioner and her biological children who were living there. The evidence is insufficient as to whether the Petitioner's home would be adequate for two additional children. The Petitioner is a single parent. The Petitioner was charged with welfare fraud on at least one occasion. As part of the disposition of the welfare fraud charge, the Petitioner is currently paying "recoupment" of $24.00 per month to repay welfare payments to which she was not entitled.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing , it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a Final Order in this case denying the Petitioner's applications to adopt or become a foster care parent for T. D. and K. W. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 29th day of March 1995.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the petitioner's request to be an adoptive or foster parent should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing family foster homes pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and for establishing minimum standards which must be met by prospective adoptive parents, pursuant to section 63.022, Florida Statutes. In September 1995, Ms. McNeal telephoned the Adoption Information Center at its advertised toll-free number, 1-800-96Adopt, to obtain information about adopting a child. She was sent a packet of materials, which included a section entitled "Adoption and the African-American Child." The Adoption Information Center also suggested she contact One Church, One Child of Florida for further information. Ms. McNeal was encouraged about her chances to adopt an African- American child when she read in the materials provided to her by the Adoption Information Center that some agencies will accept applicants for adoption who are single and who receive public assistance. Ms. McNeal is the single mother of a twelve-year-old daughter and has been on public assistance for the past two years. Ms. McNeal called One Church, One Child and told the representative that she wanted to become a foster or adoptive parent. This request was passed from One Church, One Child to Priscilla Knight, a Family Support Worker with the Department, who acts as liaison between the Department and One Church, One Child. Ms. Knight is a member of a unit within the Department responsible for recruiting and training prospective foster and adoptive parents. When she is contacted by a person who is interested in becoming a foster or adoptive parent, she invites them to an orientation meeting where more detailed information is provided. If the person is still interested, an initial visit will be made to the home of the prospective foster or adoptive parents, and, if the results of the initial visit are satisfactory, the prospective foster or adoptive parents are referred to the required Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting ("MAPP") training. This procedure was followed in evaluating Ms. McNeal's request. The family income is one of the factors the Department looks at to evaluate the suitability of persons to become foster or adoptive parents. Ms. McNeal is not employed, and her income consists of $50.00 per month in child support for her twelve-year-old daughter and $241.00 per month in Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments. She also receives $201.00 per month in food stamps. Her monthly expenses consist of $19.00 per month for rent in government subsidized housing, $40.00 per month for electrical service, $30.00 per month for telephone service, and $300.00 per month for food, for a total of $389.00. This leaves $103.00 per month for all other expenses she and her daughter incur. Ms. McNeal's income is barely sufficient to provide for her and her daughter's stability and security, and it would not be sufficient to meet the needs of the family should she receive a foster or adoptive child.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying the request of Tara McNeal to be accepted as a foster or adoptive parent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1996.
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are whether Respondents' foster home license should be revoked as stated in an Amended Administrative Complaint dated October 6, 1999, and whether Mrs. Sampson's request to adopt a child, A.H., should be denied as explained in a letter dated October 6, 1999.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Children and Family Services is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating foster homes. It also is responsible for receiving and approving applications for adoptions. John Henry and Annette Sampson live in Plant City, Florida. They have been married approximately 24 years. They have adult children and three adopted children, one of whom is their biological grandson. The other two children, both boys, were foster children whom they raised from infancy (R.S., age 10; and D.S., age 9). Mrs. Sampson, a licensed practical nurse (LPN), met R.S. when she cared for him in the hospital following his birth. He had many medical problems and his biological mother was unable to care for him. Mrs. Sampson bonded with the child and sought and received a special foster home license so she and her husband could take him home. R.S. thrived in the care of the Sampsons despite his poor prognosis. The Sampsons were thus licensed as a foster home in 1990, and over an 8-year period cared for 14 foster children, most of whom had complex medical problems. A.H. was placed with the Sampsons when he was approximately one-month old in 1993. He had been exposed to drugs during gestation and had complicated medical problems at birth. He also thrived in the Sampson's home despite poor prognosis for survival. He bonded with the family and considers the Sampsons his parents and the three other adopted children as his brothers. By November 1997, when the children were removed from the Sampson home, Mrs. Sampson had already requested permission to adopt A.H. and was working with the agency on the details of a subsidy for the child. Also living with the Sampsons in November 1997 were two female foster children: A., who was 7 years old and was profoundly mentally handicapped; and M., who was 6 years old, partially paralyzed, and mentally handicapped. The two girls were placed with the Sampsons in February and May 1997; both had been previously subjected to horrific abuse and both began to respond positively, physically and mentally, to the loving care of the Sampsons. The events which led to removal of children from the Sampson home commenced in September 1997. Because of her mental condition M. was considered a danger to herself. She had poor impulse control and ate or chewed clothing, bedding, feces, and anything she could get in her mouth. A Childrens Medical Services (CMS) physician had prescribed restraints for her and Mrs. Sampson used then sparingly. Generally she would restrain M. when she put her to bed at night and would remove the restraints when the child fell asleep. One evening in September 1997, Mrs. Sampson put M. to bed with her restraints. Shortly later Mrs. Sampson went to work on her part-time nursing shift and forgot to tell Mr. Sampson to remove the restraints. The next morning when she returned home Mrs. Sampson found the child still restrained by her wrist, with some swelling. When she took M. to school Mrs. Sampson pointed out the swelling to the school nurse and explained what happened. Because of their routine practice to notify a caseworker of any marks on a foster child, the nurse or M's teacher called the agency. Neither the nurse nor the teacher was concerned about abuse in this case. As a result of the report an abuse investigation commenced and Jim Cunningham, a Child Protection Investigator, took M. to the Child Protection Team (CPT) physician for an examination. Dr. Laleh Bahar-Posey was the CPT medical director. In her medical examination Dr. Posey noted circular marks on the child's left forearm and both ankles, consistent with ligature and consistent with her being tied to the bed. In her testimony at hearing Dr. Posey clarified that she had confirmed during the medical examination that the leg marks were caused by M.'s braces and that Mrs. Sampson had only restrained one wrist. Because the report remained unchanged, however, the agency persisted until the hearing in its assertion that M. had been bound by her arms and legs overnight. Dr. Posey also noted in her examination of M. that the child had a mark on her left forearm that appeared to be an iron burn. Because of the position of the point of the burn, facing the outside of the arm, and because of the child's partially immobile right hand and arm, Dr. Posey and the CPT social worker surmised that the burn was not accidental nor self-inflicted. Mrs. Sampson's explaination of the burn was that her daughter-in-law had been ironing in another room of the home and briefly left the iron unattended. Mrs. Sampson was summoned by a yell from M. Mrs. Sampson immediately saw the child's burn and treated it with salve and a bandage. The next day Ms. Sampson told the school nurse about the burn and asked whether she should take M. to the doctor. The nurse examined the burn and determined that it was minor, was not even blistered, and was barely visible. She did not recommend that Mrs. Sampson take M. to the doctor and the nurse understood that M. could have accidentally caused the burn herself. Although she cannot use her right hand and arm, M. swings the arm as she walks. She is very clumsy and her gait is unsteady. The burn mark according to the weight of credible testimony is wholly consistent with M.'s knocking the iron against her left forearm while flaying her right arm around the ironing board. The pink mark in the healing stage was much more evident on M.'s dark skin than it would have been on a Caucasian child. The final incident leading to removal of the children from the Sampson home was a report to the agency on or about November 17, 1997, that M. had broken her arm about 3 weeks earlier. The Child Protective Investigator obtained the medical records from South Florida Baptist Hospital in Plant City and concluded that because the break was identified as a spinal fracture, requiring a twisting motion, the injury was an "inflicted injury." The agency immediately made plans to remove all children from the Sampson home and took the records to Dr. Posey for review. Dr. Posey's notes after her review of the medical records conclude that the injury was not consistent with Mrs. Sampson's alleged history that the child fell while briefly unattended in the bathroom. Dr. Posey's notes state her "grave concerns" about the safety of this child and other children in the home. Agency staff, including the Child Protection Investigator, a supervisor, and foster care and adoption counsellors convened at the Sampson home on the evening of November 17, 1987. Mrs. Sampson was not home, and Mr. Sampson was home with the three adopted children and the three foster children (A.H., A., and M.). The staff removed the children from the home and placed them in other foster homes or shelter homes. Several things concerned the staff when they were in the process of removing the children. Lesa Simms, the adoption supervisor, saw A.'s braids tied to her bed and Mr. Sampson quickly loosened them. When asked where the girls' clothes and medicine were stored Mr. Sampson said that he took care of the boys and did not know much about the girls. Several staff noticed that prescription bottles and loose pills were left in the kitchen, some on the counter, others in a cabinet within reach of some of the children. One of the staff had to call the pharmacy to find out which medications went with each child. After the children were removed from the Sampson home Ms. Sampson's application to adopt A.H. was reviewed by the agency's Adoption Review Committee which recommended the application be denied. Although the committee members were aware of Mrs. Sampson's prior glowing record as an adoptive and foster parent, the series of three injuries to M. was too serious to ignore. The agency also initiated revocation of the Sampson's foster home license. The Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 98- 1928 states these bases for the intended revocation: A foster child in your care was bound by her arms and legs overnight resulting in ligature marks on the child. The foster mother, Ms. Sampson, stated she forgot to remove the restraints. Section 409.175(8)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. A foster child in your care received a spiral fracture on her arm when she was in the bathtub. Medical authority states the injury inflicted was inconsistent with the explanation given by you during the Child Protection Investigation. Section 409.175(8)(b)1, Florida Statutes. A foster child in your care received an iron burn on her arm. The child was seen by a physician who stated the injury was not consistent with the account given by you. Her conclusion was that the iron burn appeared to be consistent with an inflicted injury. Section 409.175(8)(b)1, Florida Statutes. During a visit to your home by department staff, medicine bottles with their safety lids removed were not stored in an appropriate place out of the reach of the children. The bottles were filled with various drugs, such as anti-psychotics, amphetamines, and other drugs that were within reach of most of the foster children in the home. There were loose pills in the cabinet above the counter, along with hot pepper flakes also within reach of most of the foster children in the home. You were out of town according to your husband, who stated he did not know anything about the girl's issues, Section 409.1275(8)(b)2, Florida Statutes, and 65C-13.010(1)(b)7.d, Florida Administrative Code. A staff individual observed Mr. Sampson untying a child's hair from the crib, Section 409.175(8)(b)(2), Florida Statutes and Rule 65C-010(1)(b)5.e, Florida Administrative Code. The October 6, 1999, letter informing Mrs. Sampson of the adoption request denial states: The Administrative Rule 65C-16 currently in effect provides that "if allegations of abuse/neglect or abandonment have been verified, the application must be rejected and referral to the Adoption Applicant Review Committee is not required." Despite this provision, the Adoptive Applicant Review Committee and the district administrator reviewed your application. It was decided that your application would be rejected based upon the facts involved in the Florida Protective Services System reports #97-103474 and #1997-126233, not just the disposition decision of these two reports. Abuse report 1997-103474 had a finding of "some indicators" of burns/scalds with regard to the burn on M.'s left arm. Abuse report 1997-126233 was "verified" for bone fracture/neglect and inadequate supervision and conditions hazardous to a child. The evidence in this protracted consolidated proceeding does not support the agency's intended actions. There is no evidence that Mrs. Sampson abused M. or any other child in her care. The ligature marks, the burn, and the broken arm were each explained by competent experts as accidents which would not be unusual in any normal family and which were entirely consistent with the history offered by Mrs. Sampson. The injuries were certainly consistent with M.'s complex mental and physical condition. In a child under twelve months of age and not walking, a spiral fracture would be an immediate cause for concern. But in an older child such as M., a spiral fracture would occur in a fall when the limb is immobilized on impact and the body twists around it. A deliberate twisting by Mrs. Sampson or someone else would have left such marks on the child's arm that the physicians who saw her in the emergency room immediately after the accident would have been alerted. Instead, no physician who treated M. ever suspected abuse. Dr. Posey did not see her, but instead only viewed the X-rays and the conclusion by Dr. Del Toro, the emergency room radiologist, that the fracture was a "spiral fracture." There is no evidence of false or "inconsistent" histories of the injury reported by Mrs. Sampson. She did not see the child fall; she was bathing M. and left the bathroom briefly; when she returned, the child was on the floor. This account is still consistent with her account to the psychologist, Dr. Whyte, that when she attempted to pick up the child they both fell. In hearing, and in her interview with Dr. Whyte, Dr. Posey receded from her former opinion that the fracture had to be non-accidental. Only one agency staff person observed Mr. Sampson's "untying" A.'s braids from her bed although approximately six individuals, including a law enforcement officer, were at the Sampsons' home gathering the children. The action as described by Ms. Simms was very quick. It might have been as benign as untangling the child's hair which was caught in the bed. Mr. Sampson unequivocaly denies that the child's hair was tied; other agency witnesses testified that they followed Ms. Simms and saw M. sitting or standing in her crib, not lying down with her hair tied. The medications were improperly stored but were inaccessible to most of the children. According to agency witnesses this violation would not have been a basis for denial of an adoption or license revocation. No one, including agency workers who had visited the home many times, announced or unannounced, had ever had a problem with storage of medications at the Sampson home. In fact, no one, not the psychologist, not adoption workers, teachers, co-workers, licensing staff nor physicians who had observed the Sampson children in the home, at school, or in the community, ever saw anything other than loving, caring, conscientious parenting by the Sampsons. Mrs. Sampson could be aggressive and demanding, but always as an advocate for the children. She made requests for special equipment, like a Geri-chair, that would help the children become more self-reliant. She minimized the use of physical restraints and she consulted with the physicians on reducing medications that she felt were keeping M. over-sedated. She bought lovely clothes and cooked special foods for the children and by all reported observations the children, adopted and foster children, thrived and were happy. The dependency proceeding was resolved with a directed verdict against the agency and the Sampsons' adopted children were returned to their home. A.H. now needs to be returned home as well and Mrs. Sampson's adoption request approved. The allegations which were the basis for the Adoption Application Review Committee's recommendation and the District Administrator's acceptance were not proven and there is a preponderance of affirmative proof that the adoption request should be granted in A.H.'s best interests. A.H. bonded with the Sampsons and their children and the passage of time since his removal from the home has not broken that bond. He still begs to go home to them. The psychologist, Dr. Whyte, who evaluated the Sampsons at the agency's referral, and the adoptions caseworker for A.H. both urge that it is in his best interests to be adopted by Mrs. Sampson. A.H.'s current foster mother, who is herself willing to adopt A.H., testified that A.H. should be adopted by the Sampsons as he loves them and considers them his parents. As established with testimony of the agency's own witnesses, evidence of the accidental, not deliberate, injuries to M., coupled with the one-time improper storage of medications, would not support a decision to revoke the foster home license. Instead, in these circumstances foster parents would be asked to sign a letter of compliance. The foster home license expired in 1998, after the children were removed from the home. In April 1998 Dr. Whyte recommended that the girls, with their complex medical problems and extraordinary care-taking demands, be placed in a therapeutic home where 24-hour care could be provided without the conflicting demands of other obligations. Circumstances in the Sampson household have changed since 1997 and 1998 when Mr. Sampson moved out, and the record does not clearly reflect whether he currently resides in the home. The adopted children have grown older and one child may be leaving to go to college. The Sampsons have also grown older. They should be permitted to reapply for a license based on the prior expiration of their license and not based on a revocation action which is not supported in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that the agency enter its final order: returning A.H. immediately to Mrs. Sampson; approving her application to adopt A.H.; and granting the Sampsons leave to apply for foster home license without any prejudice of the allegations stated in the agency's October 6, 1999, revocation letter. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2000.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner meets the education and experience requirements for licensure as Executive Director or for appointment to the Board of Directors of an adoption agency in Florida as outlined in Rule 10M- 24, F.A.C..
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was the state agency responsible for the licensing of adoption agencies in Florida and for the certification of the director and governing body members for such agencies. Petitioner was the founder and President of the A Bond Of Love Adoption Agency, Inc.. She was not on the Board of Directors. Petitioner has been a licensed attorney at law in Florida for approximately 10.5 years and has specialized in handling the adoption of children for approximately 8 years. For at least 5 of those years, she has served as an intermediary, an individual thoroughly familiar with the law of and problems related to the adoption process and who serves as, in essence, a facilitator for the parties. Petitioner founded A Bond Of Love Adoption Agency, Inc. as a nonprofit corporation in Florida to assist in the adoption process and as President and attorney for the corporation, has developed a pool of personnel at the agency to provide the resources for the adoption process in the best possible manner. In her activity as Intermediary, Petitioner first meets with the birth parents or the adoptive parents, whichever she represents initially, to determine her clients' needs. It is her practice not only to explain the legal issues involved, but also to determine the client's emotional and service needs and to line up the appropriate professional or lay sources that client might need. In the event her client is the birth parent, she works not only with that individual and the father, but also with the birth mother's extended family to alleviate the grieving process that all will feel at some point in the process. All potential issues are identified and she either counsels with the family herself or puts them in contact with the right other source to help. Petitioner's practice differs radically from the normal intermediary practice since she delves much more deeply into non- legal impacts and issues of the adoption process. She has implemented procedures of communication, where appropriate, to insure the feedback of information from both the birth and adoptive parents which alleviates the anxiety of both and facilitates the healing process in the birth parents who have given up their child. It also supports the process of acceptance by the family of the adoptive child and assists in planning for the answer of future questions by the child about the adoption process. In the course of her practice, she has also handled the adoption of handicapped, biracial, and other children who are difficult to adopt and has facilitated resolution of the additional emotional and financial (medical care costs) relevant to that category of child. Her experience in the human services field, as a result of her frequent work arrangements with the Department, enables her to facilitate the resolution of these problems so that the services are provided and the adoption can proceed. Petitioner is recognized as an expert in the field of adoption law and practice, having done over 400 adoptions. She serves on the advisory board for the Department's agency dealing with mixed racial adoptions; she is a volunteer worker with the guardian ad litem program, the alternative abortion program, and the schools of Sarasota County; she is active and has held leadership positions in the adoption subcommittees of both the Florida and American Bar Associations; is a speaker at numerous legal and other relevant organizations; and has widely published in the field. The current Executive Director of A Bond of Love Adoption Agency, Ms. Martin, has over 17 years experience as a social worker in various specialties, including adoptions. Prior to assuming her current position, she worked for 1.5 years with the Children's Home Society, an adoption agency, in St. Petersburg. While there she worked under an executive director whose job was to raise funds, supervise personnel and the expenditure of funds and resources. As Executive Director for A Bond Of Love, Ms. Martin supervises two adoption counselors and serves in that capacity herself. She also works with out of state adoptions and conducts educational seminars for adoptive couples. From time to time, when social workers were not available to do this work and the social assessment so requires, Ms. Stockham has been called upon to do those reports and they have been at the very least equal in quality and substance to those done by the full time social workers. She has done between 3 and 5 assessments during the current year. The service provided by the Petitioner agency is much broader in scope than that provided by Martin's previous agency, the Children's Home Society. The training she got for this extra work came from Ms. Stockham. She has attended seminars in adoption-related subjects in other areas of the country, and the training she has been given by Ms. Stockham is totally consistent with the information given in those sessions, proving to her that Stockham knows here business. The agency has presented a series of 4.5 hour seminars on adoptions considerations over the years. The majority of these, which are much more in depth than those given by the Children's Home Society, were given by Ms. Stockham who also provides the same service to private adoption clients. Ms. Martin feels that Stockham's experience in the adoptive process, not only as an attorney but also as a counselor, is definitely similar to the human services duties a human services worker provides. She is totally satisfied that Ms. Stockham could do a creditable job in the position of Executive Director of the agency. Ms. Johnson also works for the agency, having had 6 years' experience with the Department as an adoption counselor. In that capacity, over the years she worked repeatedly with the Ms. Stockham and is intimately familiar with her work. Stockham has given her numerous verbal assessments. In each of those cases, she dealt delicately and sensitively with both the birth and adoptive parents and the social and legal matters as well. Ms. Stockham is the best she has ever seen in the adoption process and is very innovative. Ms. Johnson has also observed Ms. Stockham working in seminars and support groups which Stockham helped get started. In these seminars, she provides training for both birth and adoptive parents and does extremely well in handling these sensitive situations. Ms. Stockham is the adoptive parent of two biracial parents and Ms. Johnson did the home assessment of Ms. Stockham's home for the second adoption. She found her to be very knowledgeable and sensitive to the needs of biracial adoptions. She has also had numerous opportunities to review assessments done by Ms. Stockham and has found them to be the equivalent of and more in depth than those done by Department social workers. Over the years, all of the the adoption community professionals have benefited from Petitioner Stockham's expertise in the area. There is no question that Ms. Stockham is a highly skilled and dedicated practitioner in the area of adoption law and her expertise and innovativeness have contributed greatly to the success of the adoption process in Sarasota County. Several practitioners and judges have so indicated in commendatory letters to the Department in support of her application, and it is so found. Ms. Stockham also urges that the Department has followed an inconsistent policy toward the approval of attorneys as Executive Directors of adoption agencies in other parts of the state. In support of this position, she has offered the director resumes and licenses for child placement agencies headed by lawyers. It is found that licensure as an attorney at law in this state is not a disqualification for service as an executive director of such an agency. However, licensure as an attorney is not, per se, proof of possession of the educational and experience requirements set down by the Department's rule. Here, the Department, in its letter of denial which prompted Ms. Stockham's request for hearing, accepted her degree in psychology as meeting the "related field" criterion, but denied the application on the basis of her lack of experience in "human service or child welfare programs." Ms. Stockham's testimony and that of Ms. Martin and Ms. Johnson as to the nature of her work with adoptive and birth parents, aliunde the technical and legal requirements of the adoptive process, uncontradicted by Respondent, shows Stockham's experience falls well within the prescribed arena. Even disregarding the first several years of her practice, when she was new to the field, it is clear that for the past four or five years, her experience qualifies as human service or child welfare experience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order approving Petitioner Susan Stockham's application for licensure as Executive Director of the A Bond of Love Adoption Agency, Inc., but denying her application and that of any other paid employee to serve on the agency's Board of Directors. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1993. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan L. Stockhan, Esquire 2520 South Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 34239 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire DHRS, District 8 8695 College Parkway, Suite 217 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent Marie Smith has committed an intentional or negligent act materially affecting the health or safety of children for whom she operated as a "medical foster care" parent or provider.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Marie Smith, was first licensed in 1992, as a foster care parent by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, since re-named the Department of Children and Family Services. In 1996 she became a qualified medical foster parent, authorized to keep children with special medical problems. The Respondent received special training to become a medical foster parent from Children's Medical Services, a unit of the Department of Health, which oversees the progress of children placed in medical foster care. Some of the training the Respondent received concerned a child, T.B. It involved the use of the medication Flovent, which is used to treat asthma and other bronchial conditions. Flovent is dispensed in a small aerosol container and is administered by use of an inhaler. The training which the Respondent received includes the manner in which the person administering Flovent can ascertain when the container is empty and no longer usable. In connection with the Respondent's training as a medical foster parent, Ms. Smith was also instructed in the importance of giving all medications as prescribed and in how to document administration of medications. Through training and practice she learned to execute forms provided by Children's Medical Services (CMS) called treatment records and medication records, in which were logged each dose of medication given. Although not connected with her training as a foster parent, she also received ninety hours in classroom instruction which resulted in her being certified as a pharmacy technician by the State of Florida. On July 29, 1996, the child D.P. was born. D.P. and his twin brother were placed in Ms. Smith's foster home in October 1996. D.P. lived with Ms. Smith continuously until he was removed from the home in March 1999. In July 1998, D.P. was diagnosed as having bronchiolitis, a chronic inflammation of the bronchial passages of the lungs, later identified as asthma. In order to treat this condition he was prescribed Flovent. The purpose of the medication was to reduce the frequency of exacerbations or "asthma attacks." The medication was not designed to alleviate attacks already in progress, but to prevent future attacks. The medication is only effective if given as prescribed over an extended period of time. If Flovent is not administered as prescribed over a period of time the patient may suffer an increased incidence of asthma. The failure to take preventive steps can result in long-term damage to the lungs according to Dr. Bailey. Ms. Smith filled the first prescription for Flovent at Smith's Pharmacy on July 9, 1998. Only one container of Flovent was dispensed on that occasion. A container of Flovent contains an advertised one hundred and twenty (120) metered actuations or "puffs." The literature inserted into every package contains a warning to the user to use the number of actuations, one hundred and twenty, indicated on the box because the correct amount of medicine in each puff cannot be guaranteed after that point. D.P.'s prescription required him to receive two puffs per day, once in the morning and once in the evening. Since the label on the container itself stated that there were only one hundred and twenty puffs per canister, the first container was due to be replaced after sixty days of use at two puffs per day. Notwithstanding this fact, the prescription was not refilled until October 16, 1998, or ninety-eight days after the first container was obtained. Thus, for a period of thirty- eight days, D.P. either received no dose at all, or potentially received an inadequate dose of medicine. An actual test of a full canister of Flovent was conducted at the hearing. That revealed that one could get approximately one hundred and fifty- seven puffs from a canister before it is empty. However, the literature which comes with the medication makes it clear that a user cannot depend on the adequacy of the dosage after one hundred and twenty puffs. Thus, even if Ms. Smith could have dispensed one hundred and sixty puffs from a canister, and if she maintained that she was administering two puffs per day, she would have run out of the medication after no more than eighty days. Ninety-eight days elapsed however, between the filling of the prescription and the first refill which was obtained in October 1998. Even under Ms. Smith's description of the dosing and administering of the medication, D.P. either had to have gone without his medication for some days or was receiving a less-than-standard amount in order for the medication to last as long as she maintained it did (i.e., possibly one puff per day). Ms. Smith maintained that she actually obtained two packages of Flovent from the pharmacy rather than one on October 16, 1998. The pharmacy records, however, show only one container being dispensed both in July and in October. Those records were made contemporaneously with the receipt and filling of the prescription. The pharmacist and pharmacy technician each double-check the work of the other. Thus if Ms. Smith had obtained double the amount of medication, both the pharmacist and the pharmacy technician would have had to make the same error at the same time, which is improbable. Moreover, there is no label on the extra box taped to the box dispensed on October 16, 1998. It is not the practice of the Smith Pharmacy to tape such boxes together or to label only one box. In any event, on October 16, 1998, Ms. Smith got the prescription refilled. On that day she picked up one container of Flovent. The prescription had not changed at that point so D.P. was still supposed to receive two puffs per day, so the container should have been replaced after sixty days. In view of the fact that Ms. Smith was keeping T.B., another child at the same time she provided foster care for D.P., and since T.B. also had a prescription for Flovent, it has not been established that Ms. Smith could have only gotten an extra Flovent box from the pharmacy, with the boxes containing the two canisters taped together and dispensed together on October 16, 1998. She could have simply used T.B.'s prescription box. The prescription obtained on October 16, 1998, was not re-filled again until March 10, 1999. A period of one hundred and forty-five days had thus passed before a new container was obtained. The test performed at hearing showed that as much as one hundred and fifty-six to one hundred and sixty puffs are contained in such a canister and therefore the medication might have lasted the one hundred and forty-five days. However, if the manufacturer's warning or instruction on the literature supplied with the canister is to be believed, after one hundred and twenty puffs had been dispensed (a sixty-day supply) then less medication might be dispensed with each puff thereafter. Since one hundred and forty-five days elapsed before a new prescription and container of medicine was obtained, D.P. may have failed to received one hundred and seventy doses of medicine over a period of five months. This could clearly have resulted in a worsening of D.P.'s condition. Moreover, Ms. Smith incorrectly documented the administration of the Flovent as though she were in fact giving the medication twice per day as prescribed. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 in evidence. The testimony of the witnesses employed with the CMS who oversee the care for children in medical foster care uniformly found that the Respondent provided good care and they never saw any evidence that medical care for the child D.P. was neglected. In fact, Dr. Samir Ebbeid, a pediatric cardiologist who treated the child from October 1996 through April of 1999, found that the Respondent uniformly complied with his instructions about care for the child and thought that the care of the child by the Respondent between the visits to his office was appropriate. In fact he found that the child improved while under the Respondent's care and that there was no reason to believe that the child's medical care under the care of Ms. Smith, the Respondent, was ever neglected. The child's asthmatic condition actually improved during the time he was under the Respondent's medical foster care.
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 suspending the foster care license of Marie Smith for a period of ninety days, during which time she should undertake an approved course of instruction concerning the proper administration and record-keeping of administration of prescription drugs for children in her care. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Room 252-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Richard D. Ogburn, Esquire Post Office Box 923 Panama City, Florida 32402 Samuel C. Chavers, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners filed an application for institutional adoption of the minor child, K.H., with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services at the invitation of the Department. The Petitioners and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services believed that the termination of the parental rights of the minor child, K.H., was imminent. The parental rights of the minor child, K.H., were not terminated as expected. As a result of the application for adoption, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services generated an adoption home study of the Petitioners. The report of the review committee dated January 1, 1995, based upon the adoption home study, was issued prior to the termination of the parental rights of the minor child, K.H. Petitioners were notified and timely challenged the report of the review committee, and the concurrence to the report of Dr. John M. Awad, Ph.D., District 2 Administrator. Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Department to enter the report of the review committee and Dr. Awad's concurrence in the absence of the termination of the parental rights of the minor child, K.H. The parties agree to present to the Hearing Officer the issue: Whether the committee report and the concurrence of Dr. Awad should have been completed in the absence of the termination of the parental rights to the minor child, K.H.?
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the committee's report and the concurrence of Dr. John M. Awad, Ph.D., be declared a nullity, that a letter be prepared denying Petitioner's adoption application because parental rights have not been terminated, and that the file be closed except upon order of the Circuit Court. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 22nd day of September, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Owen, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 320 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles A. Finkel, Esquire Suite 252 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents' child- placing agency license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and monitoring child-placing agencies. The Center, whose address is 1602 East Third Avenue, Tampa, Florida, received its initial child-placing agency license from DCF in 2004. The license was renewed October 12, 2006. Susan Morgan has been the director of the Center since its inception. DCF contracts with HKI to provide community-based child welfare services in Hillsborough County. HKI contracts with Camelot Community Care for the performance of adoption related services. DCF received complaints about Respondent and issued an Administrative Complaint with the following categories of violations: A foster parent home study was finalized after only one home visit lasting half an hour. The home study document indicates four home consultations for that client. Files relating to clients were left in an unsecured environment at the Center with unauthorized persons having access to them. An adoptive home study was completed without a visit being made to the prospective adoptive parents' home. Respondent lost or misplaced paperwork from clients which contained confidential information. Respondent failed to timely provide foster parents with a copy of their foster parent licenses once the licenses were issued. Regarding the first violation, two home studies are required to finalize a foster parent home study. The subject family was provided a template for filling in information about their home. This is a reasonable means of gathering information about a family. The family was directed to fill in the template using the third person format (so that anyone reading the document might infer that someone other than the family had written the information). Morgan did not visit the home at issue, but did send her associate (Wendy Martinez) who conducted a brief 30 to 40-minute visit. The home study was signed by Morgan and dated March 13, 2007, some four or five weeks prior to Martinez's visit. The home study included the following table concerning visits and consultations: Contact Information Inquiry Date 01/05/06 Inquiry Home Visit 02/10/06 Initial Home Consultation 03/15/06 MAPP Graduation 02/26/06 2nd Home Consultation 04/02/06 Final Home Consultation 03/08/07 Date Application Signed 03/08/07 The table seems to indicate a single home visit on February 10, 2006, and three home "consultations" on later dates. Morgan says the date of the home visit is a typographical error; it should say April 18, 2006, i.e., the date of Martinez's visit. Morgan admits only one home visit was made, but says the home study was not final. Her testimony on that topic is not credible. The home study appears complete, has references to several home visits and/or consultations, and is signed by Morgan subsequent to the dates appearing in the aforementioned table. DCF considers the references to home consultations to be tantamount to home visits. Inasmuch as at least two home visits are required for a foster parent home study, this interpretation makes sense.1 A discussion of the differences, if any, between home visits and home studies follows. There was much testimony at the final hearing as to whether a home visit and a home study are the same thing. Each of the experienced social workers and managers who testified (other than Morgan) seemed to believe the two were synonymous. Even the two witnesses called by Respondent to address the issue opined that home visit and home consultation mean essentially the same thing. Respondent introduced definitions from The Social Worker's Dictionary, but there is nothing in those definitions to suggest they apply to foster care or adoption situations. None of the social workers who testified indicated they would rely on that source to define home visits versus consultations. The home study at issue appears to suggest that four home visits/consultations were conducted, when in fact only one (of the required two) was done. The second category of rule violation concerns unsecured client records. Files belonging to clients of child- placing agencies are extremely confidential in nature. Respondent moved into a new office in the Ybor City section of Tampa during September 2006. The office was shared with a company that specializes in estimating construction project costs. The estimating company had two employees, a receptionist and the owner of the company. The office was set up so that the receptionist was in the same room as Respondent's employee, Martinez. Morgan had a separate office for herself, and the owner of the estimating company had an office upstairs. The Ybor City office had been inspected by DCF in October 2006 and was found to be sufficient for its intended purposes. A client, Angela Ferguson, visited the Center in early April 2007. Morgan was not present when Ferguson arrived, but Martinez was there, as were employees from the other business. Martinez called Morgan on the client's behalf so that Morgan could come to the office. While waiting for Morgan, the client noticed 50 to 60 file folders lying around the office. Some of the files belonged to other clients whose names were visible to Ferguson. Some of the files were probably forms and other non- confidential documents. The client files were not locked in a cabinet or otherwise protected from persons using Respondent's office. On or about May 2, 2007, another client, Jennifer Moody, also visited the Center to get her file (so that she could transfer to another adoption agency). She walked into the office and found the estimating company's receptionist, but no one from the Center was there. The receptionist called Morgan because Moody wanted to wait for her to arrive. While waiting, Moody observed files lying around the office in plain view. When Ferguson expressed her concerns to DCF about the way files were being handled, a licensing specialist was sent out to investigate. DCF employee Melissa Leggett made an unannounced visit to the Center on May 16, 2007, at 10:00 in the morning. Martinez was in the office when Leggett arrived; Martinez called Morgan for Leggett, and Morgan arrived shortly thereafter. Leggett noticed confidential files lying around the office, including files for some clients who she personally knew. Leggett advised Morgan that the files would have to be protected by placing them in a locked file cabinet or locked room. Morgan agreed to remedy the situation and seems to have done so by the date of the final hearing. Files are now being protected from public scrutiny. Each employee of the estimating company has signed a Confidentiality Office Policy agreeing to keep all records of the Center confidential. The third category of violation concerned an adoptive home study for Moody (the same client who had visited the Center). The home study for this family was also sent in blank template form with instructions to fill it out using the third person. Moody filled out the form and sent it back to Morgan. In April 2006, Moody and her husband were scheduled to attend a meeting with prospective adoptee children at Splitsville, a Tampa bowling alley. In order to attend such meetings, prospective adoptive parents must have a home study completed in advance. This serves the purpose of making sure that such parents actually qualify as adoptive parents before they are exposed to the children. The home study for Moody and her husband was finished by Morgan in time for the Moodys to attend the Splitsville function. Although several home visits were scheduled, each of them was cancelled due to various circumstances. No home visit was ever made. However, the home study was completed and signed by Morgan with a recommendation that the family be approved to adopt. The recommendation section of the home study included as its basis: "Based on MAPP training, personal interviews, home consultations . . .". The home study contains a thorough description of the home, including the pool and yard, presumably based on details provided by the Moodys. Moody decided to terminate her relationship with Morgan and the Center after not hearing from Morgan during the period of July through November. As stated earlier herein, Moody picked up her file, which included the signed home study, from the Center. Morgan maintains the home study was still a "work in progress" at that time. However, it had already been signed and was dated April 18, 2006. (Moody was scheduled to attend the Splitsville event on April 22, 2007, and would have needed a completed home study in order to attend.) By Morgan's own admission, she was never in the home of Moody and did not "effectively or efficiently manage" that client's case. It was, as Morgan admitted, wrong to sign the home study without having visited the home. It appears the home study was finished so that the family could attend the MAPP event. The next category of violation had to do with lost or misplaced paperwork. A child placing agency must protect all information provided to it by clients so that confidentiality is maintained. LaClair and her husband submitted a large packet of information to Morgan as part of their attempt to adopt a child through the Center. The information was lost or misplaced by the Center on at least two (but possibly three) occasions. The submitted information contained extremely confidential information, including: marriage licenses, divorce decrees, birth certificates, social security numbers, military identification numbers, and insurance information. The last category of violation concerned failure by Respondent to timely provide licenses to approved foster parents. One of Respondent's clients, Barry Plesch, indicated a long interval between verbal approval and receipt of his paper license. However, he could not quantify the number of times nor specifically remember what dates he may have called Respondent to ask about the license. Another client, Brad Farber, made numerous requests for his license. When he expressed an urgent need for it, the license was produced forthwith. On May 17, 2007, Morgan met with representatives of HKI to discuss the Moody home study and the situation relating to confidential records. At that time, Morgan admitted to falsifying the Moody home study. Morgan acknowledged the gravity and severity of that mistake. She did explain that her office was undergoing reorganization at the time of Leggett's visit, which was the reason so many files were lying around the office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services upholding the revocation of Respondent's child-placing agency license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether HRS should grant the Petitioner's application a license to operate a foster care home for dependent children.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Christopher Murphy, is a single male, born July 27, 1966. He wants to be a foster care parent for up to two teenagers, same sex, including those with a history of having been abused. In approximately September, 1994, the Petitioner approached the Children's Home Society (CHS), located in Orlando, Florida, to inquire about applying for licensure to operate a foster care home for dependent children. CHS is and was under contract with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to screen prospective licensees. The screening process included, among other things: interviews with the Petitioner; a home study; review of written personal references on behalf of the Petitioner; evaluation of the Petitioner's participation in the HRS-approved Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting (MAPP) program. After conducting its training and screening of the Petitioner, CHS recommended the Petitioner for licensure "for two children, same gender, ages 12 to 18 years," and the Petitioner filed his application for licensure on or about May 3, 1995. The Petitioner and the "relief persons" he designated in his application underwent background screening, and no disqualifying information was found. However, by letter dated July 11, 1995, HRS gave notice of intent to deny the Petitioner's application for the following reasons: According to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10M-6, it is the opinion of the Department that based on your own experience with depression, your single lifestyle and your sexual orientation that your desire to be a foster parent is not in the best inte- rest of the children in the custody of Health and Rehabilitative Services. You have indicated that you have doubts about your ability to work with HRS in seeking rehabilitation of the families with children in foster care, that you have limited patience with bureaucracy, and that you would not like to see the foster children in your care return to their parents. Professional counseling to relieve distress over your sexual orientation did not resolve that issue. These consider- ations lead HRS to believe that it would not be in the best interest of children in state custody to be placed with you in foster care. The Petitioner's Mental and Emotional Status The evidence is that the Petitioner experienced some difficulties growing up as one of ten siblings. His mother was very religious but, at the same time, appears to have been a strict disciplinarian and, at times, almost "cruel" to the children. In addition, the Petitioner tended to be a loner during his early years. He was physically weak and was susceptible to being bullied by other children. In addition, he played differently from other boys his age, preferring to spend his time reading Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters rather than playing with friends. As the Petitioner grew older, he increasingly recognized signs that he was homosexually oriented. These signs disturbed him because a homosexual orientation was contrary to his desires and to what he understood to be the morals of his family and religion. When the Petitioner went to college in the mid-1980's, he still would have been considered a "social isolate," and the combination of stresses from leaving home, living on his own at college and dealing with his sexual orientation resulted in depression requiring individual psychotherapy and medication (at first Impramine and later, in 1992, Prozac). Dealing with his mother's death in 1988 caused the depression to recur, but the Petitioner was able to recover with the help of the psychotherapy and medication. Since 1988, the Petitioner has suffered periodic bouts of mild depression. (Medication he takes for rapid heartbeat tends to cause some depression as a side effect.) However, the Petitioner's major depression is in remission, and he has been able to control the mild depression by the appropriate use of medication. The Petitioner's physicians advise him to continue on medication and seek therapy as necessary. In recent years, the Petitioner has resolved his conflicted feelings about his mother, as well as many of the conflicts he had with members of his family. The Petitioner also has made great strides to resolve his conflicted feelings about his sexual orientation. At the same time, he still rejects the values and lifestyle of the gay world and continues to accept most of the basic tenets of traditional values and lifestyle. As a result, there is no indication that the Petitioner is trying to use the foster parent program in order to make a political statement about gay rights. However, the difficulty the Petitioner will continue to face is that traditional society does not necessarily always accept him. This probably will make being a foster parent more difficult for the Petitioner. The Petitioner also has made considerable progress making and maintaining viable personal relationships. He has been able to work responsibly and well in the positions he has held with Universal Studios in Orlando and has made and maintained several positive and valuable friendships through work and elsewhere. In the words of a licensed psychologist who evaluated him in August- September, 1995, the Petitioner is "on the mend" in this regard; by this he meant that the Petitioner is making good progress in the right direction. If major depression were to recur, the Petitioner obviously would have difficulty persevering, and probably would be unable to persevere, in seeing a foster child through to the end of his or her temporary placement. But in recent years the Petitioner has been able to control depression by appropriately using his antidepressant medication, monitoring himself for symptoms of depression, and seeking appropriate therapy as needed. As long as he continues to do so, it is not anticipated that major depression will recur. HRS has licensed others with mental and emotional status similar to the Petitioner to be foster parents. It is true that there is a possibility that the stress of being a foster parent could cause the Petitioner's depression to recur. In many ways, teenage is the most difficult age bracket for foster care, and abused teenagers can present even greater difficulties. But HRS maintains control over the children to be placed with the Petitioner, and an effort could be made not to place the most difficult foster care challenges with the Petitioner, at least initially. In addition, HRS and the Petitioner could cooperate in monitoring the effects that the stress of being a foster parent have on the Petitioner. There is a good chance that the Petitioner's depression will not recur as a result of being a foster parent. The Petitioner's Parenting Experience The Petitioner has no children of his own and has no parenting experience. He grew up in a family of ten children but tended to spend much of his time apart from them. The Petitioner did some baby-sitting during his teens. But otherwise, through his college years, the Petitioner did not exhibit much inclination or desire to be around or work with children. The Petitioner changed as he reached adulthood. He now has a very strong desire to help teenage children by acting as their foster parent. In recent years, he has had the opportunity to work with families having their pictures made at the Universal Studios park in Orlando and has found that he had success interacting with the young members of those families. While he has not had much experience taking care of teenagers, he also has enjoyed spending considerable time in recent years interacting with the young children of friends and other family members. (Living in the a vacation center, many siblings and other members of his family have taken advantage of the opportunity to visit him since he moved to Orlando.) The Petitioner seems to interact well with the children in several arenas--facilitating play, sharing snacks and meals, helping with homework, going on picnics and other outings, suggesting and participating in other positive family activities. His friends' children like him, and his friends trust him with tending to their children. On the other hand, the Petitioner's experience taking care of children is limited. The Petitioner's experience as the sole caretaker responsible for children is relatively sparse and of relatively short duration. While the Petitioner has done some baby-sitting for family and friends, most of the time he has spent with children has been while their parents were around. The Petitioner has not had occasion to be responsible for children overnight or for extended periods of time (certainly not for 24 or more hours). He also has not had much other experience working with children in other settings. He has not, e.g., worked or volunteered as a counselor for church or civic youth groups or camps. Due to the nature of the Petitioner's experience with children, and his lack of experience with teenagers, it is not certain that the Petitioner will succeed as a foster parent of teenagers, or children of any age. It also is not certain that the Petitioner himself will thrive as and enjoy being a 24- hour a day foster parent. It would be desirable both for the Petitioner and for the children to be placed with him for the Petitioner to get more experience before beginning to act as a foster parent. But, on the other hand, the same probably could be said for most first-time parents. It is hard to truly know what it is like to be a parent until you become one. HRS has no non-rule policy establishing clear minimum experience standards for licensure as a foster parent. HRS has licensed others to be foster parents with as little or less parenting experience compared to the Petitioner. The licensing administrator who testified for HRS stated that HRS never has issued a provisional license to a first-time applicant and that HRS would not issue one for the purpose of evaluating the provisional licensee while the licensee gains additional parenting experience. The Petitioner's Ability to Be a "Team Player" On the "Strengths/Needs Work Sheet" for various sessions of the Petitioner's MAPP training, the Petitioner wrote: (Needs as a Result of Meeting 2) I am intolerant of those who hurt children and may have a difficult time holding back and/or editing my language in their company (during visits). I have limited patience with bureaucracy. If something is not getting done, I will do it myself regardless of who gets offended. (Needs as a Result of Meeting 5) I probably will assume I am a better parent than the child's birth parents, and I don't think I'll want the child to return to his biological family. As CHS conducts MAPP training, prospective foster parents are encouraged to use the "Strengths/Needs Work Sheet" to honestly express their deepest concerns about their ability to succeed as foster parents. Then, the trainers help the trainees deal with those concerns. CHS' MAPP trainers believed that, during the course of the training sessions, the Petitioner was able to work through his concerns and grow through the training process. He was open to the trainers' ideas and actively participated in the sessions. In their estimation, the Petitioner's comments, even when in the fifth session, should not be taken as an indication that the Petitioner would not be able to work in partnership with HRS and birth families as a team player. The licensing administrator who testified for HRS was not familiar with how CHS conducted MAPP training and was not in a position to conclude, as she did, that the Petitioner's statements on the "Strengths/Needs Work Sheet," in and of themselves, show that the Petitioner will not be able to work in partnership with HRS and birth families as a team player. The Petitioner has had no difficulty working within the bureaucracy at Universal Studios. He has had good relationships with his supervisors and has had no difficulty accepting their authority over him. Nothing about his employment experience would indicate that the Petitioner would have difficulty working in partnership with HRS and birth families as a team player. The Petitioner's Single Life Style On the "Strengths/Needs Work Sheet" for various sessions of the Petitioner's MAPP training, the Petitioner wrote: (Needs as a Result of Meeting 2) I am responsible, but do not lead a structured life. I eat when I'm hungry, sleep when I'm tired, have ice cream for breakfast . . . (Needs as a Result of Meeting 3) I may not be able to go out all night and do things as spontaneously as I do. (Needs as a Result of Meeting 5) It's just me - one on one. If I had a spouse to back me up when making rules or administer- ing discipline, things would be easier. On the other hand, the Petitioner also counted among his strengths: (Needs as a Result of Meeting 3) It's just me. . . . A foster child has only one person to adjust to. (Needs as a Result of Meeting 4) I have no other people living in my home and can devote a majority of my free time to my foster child. (Needs as a Result of Meeting 5) As a single male with no children, I will be the only one affected. These comments indicate an awareness on the Petitioner's part that his life will change if one or two foster children are placed in his home. As he recognizes, being single will make it more difficult in some ways, but somewhat easier in other ways. What can make being a single foster parent most difficult is not having the emotional and intellectual support and help of another adult in the home. A single foster parent must attempt to compensate by having adult family and friends who are willing and able to serve some of those needs. Several of the Petitioner's friends are willing and able to serve in this role for the Petitioner. All have met HRS's screening requirements. One thing a single foster parent cannot replace is the inability to demonstrate (and teach through) a successful marriage. But this inability clearly is not disqualifying. The Petitioner's Sexual Orientation HRS's notice of intent to deny the Petitioner's application mentioned the Petitioner's sexual orientation. But at final hearing HRS took the position that sexual orientation itself was not a ground for denial of the Petitioner's application. While not disqualifying in itself, being a homosexual foster parent undeniably will present special problems. First, it already has been mentioned that it can be a challenge for a homosexual to function in traditional society, and trying to function as a foster parent in traditional society surely will present its own special challenges. Along those lines, it is foreseeable, e.g., that a foster parent's homosexuality could be unacceptable to the birth family. In addition, since unmarried cohabitation by two or more adults is disqualifying, the Petitioner would be restricted to living alone. Lastly, many foster parents later adopt children placed with them, but the Petitioner will not be able to because homosexuality is disqualifying for purposes of adoption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order issuing the Petitioner a license to operate a foster home for up to two children, same sex, ages 12 to 18 years of age. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 27th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4150 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Rejected that he applied for a license then; he initiated the screening process and preservice training at that time. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 2.-4. Accepted and incorporated. 5.-8. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 9. The characterization "extensive" is rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 10.-12. Accepted and incorporated. 13. The date "July 11, 1996" is rejected as contrary to the evidence. (It was 1995.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 14.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 17. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 18.-22. Conclusions of law. Accepted and incorporated. Conclusion of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated. 4.-6. Conclusions of law. 7.-9. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The first testimony referred to Noll's knowledge of whether the Petitioner was on medication at the time of the hearing. Noll was not "pressed" for the additional testimony; he was just asked a different question.) Rejected as contrary to the evidence that Noll "failed to follow through." Also, subordinate and unnecessary, as the question for determination is whether the evidence at final hearing supported licensure. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Again, the question for determination is whether the evidence at final hearing supported licensure.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that he did not present any experience in his application; he presented more at final hearing after being informed that HRS included experience in the "single lifestyle" ground for the July 11, 1995, notice of intent to deny. Again, the question for determination is whether the evidence at final hearing supported licensure. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; he presented more at final hearing. See 13., above. 15.-16. Generally, accepted. The Petitioner's exact statements are incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Petitioner's purpose was to "avoid working with birth families." (The gist of Noll's discussion with the Petitioner appears to have been that foster parenting older children generally makes reunification less of a concern; either reunification would not be a viable option or, if considered, the older child would have more say in the matter. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but, as previously ruled, subordinate to the ultimate issue for determination, and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ann E. Colby, Esquire 305 Elkhorn Court Winter Park, Florida 32792 Laurie A. Lashomb, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory D. Venz Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
The Issue Whether Respondents' family foster home license should be revoked for the reasons set forth in the March 24, 1999, letter that Respondents received from the Department of Children and Family Services (Department).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondents are husband and wife. They live in a comfortable home in a "very nice neighborhood" located in the Country Club of Miami area in Miami-Dade County and are well respected members of their community. Mr. Roberts, who, like his wife, is college educated, worked as a teacher, administrator, and coach in the Miami-Dade County public school system. He retired in 1992 after 32 years of exemplary service. The Roberts have four natural children (all of whom are adults and live outside of their home) and 12 grandchildren. Approximately four years after Mr. Roberts' retirement, he and his wife decided that they wanted to become family foster parents. Their decision was motivated, not by monetary considerations, but by a desire to help children who needed foster care. The Roberts subsequently applied for, and were granted, a license to operate a family foster home at their residence. Following the issuance of this license, foster children C. P., her sister L. P., T. R., and her sister S. R. were placed in the Roberts' home. The Roberts were loving and caring family foster parents who treated their foster children like they were their own children or grandchildren, and provided them with a reasonably safe and nurturing environment. When the foster children in the Roberts' home misbehaved, they were disciplined. On occasion, when she believed circumstances warranted, Mrs. Roberts disciplined the children (just as she would her own grandchildren under similar circumstances) by hitting them on their hand with a wooden switch. There was no intention on her part to physically harm or injure the children, nor is there any persuasive evidence that she inflicted any such harm or injury. Mrs. Roberts merely wanted to get the children's attention and make them realize that what they did was wrong and must not be repeated. Notwithstanding her good intentions, Mrs. Roberts acted in a manner that was contrary to the Department's written policy (of which she was aware and with which she had agreed to comply) prohibiting family foster parents from using corporal punishment to discipline the foster children in their family foster home. Being hit on the hand with a wooden switch by Mrs. Roberts was the only corporal punishment to which C. P., L. P., T. R., and S. R. were subjected while in the Roberts' care. At no time did Mrs. Roberts "punch [C. P.] in [the] arm, scratch[] her on [the] neck, [or] push[] her head into [the] wall," as was reported on the Department's abuse hotline on October 15, 1998. Victor Onweazuekwu, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned the task of investigating this report of alleged abuse (which was reduced to writing by the Department employee who received the report). He began his investigation by visiting the Roberts' home at approximately 9:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 18, 1999, three days after the report was made. Jodi Forbes, C. P.'s and L. P.'s adoption counselor, joined Mr. Onweazuekwu later that evening during his visit to the home. After introducing himself to the Roberts and explaining the purpose of his visit, Mr. Onweazuekwu asked, and was permitted, to speak with C. P. and her sister L. P. Following his interview of the girls, Mr. Onweazuekwu "read [to the Roberts] the allegations" that had been made against Mrs. Roberts. He then asked Mrs. Roberts if these allegations were true. Mrs. Roberts candidly admitted that she had disciplined the foster children in her home by hitting them on the palm of their hands with a "switch that f[ell] from [one of] the trees in [the Roberts'] back yard," but she (truthfully) denied punching or scratching C. P. or pushing C. P.'s head against the wall. The Roberts were upset that Mrs. Roberts had been falsely accused of having engaged in such abusive conduct, and they were understandably concerned that, if C. P. (who they reasonably believed to be deceitful and manipulative) and her sister L. P. (who they viewed as being easily influenced by C. P.) remained in their home, they [the Roberts] might be subjected to additional false accusations by the girls, perhaps even more serious than those that had already been made against Mrs. Roberts. Therefore, despite the pleas of Mr. Onweazuekwu and Ms. Forbes that C. P. and L. P. be allowed to remain in the Roberts' home overnight, the Roberts insisted that the two girls be removed that evening. When Ms. Forbes left the Roberts home that evening, she took C. P. and L. P. with her and subsequently placed them in another family foster home. The girls departed the Roberts' home with only the clothes that they were wearing that evening. The following day, Ms. Forbes telephoned Mrs. Roberts and made arrangements to pick up the remainder of the girls' belongings. Later that day, Ms. Forbes paid a visit to the Roberts' home and asked Mrs. Roberts for the girls' clothes. Mrs. Roberts initially declined, stating that she thought that Ms. Forbes would be picking up the clothes the following day. Ms. Forbes then asked Mrs. Roberts for at least "one outfit so that [Ms. Forbes] could send the girls to school the next day." Mrs. Roberts responded to this request by giving Ms. Forbes "most of [the girls'] clothes." Two days later, C. P. and her new family foster parent came to the Roberts' home and picked up the rest of C. P.'s and L. P.'s belongings. Mr. Onweazuekwu, following his visit to the Roberts' home on October 18, 1998, requested the University of Miami, School of Medicine's Child Protection Team (CPT) to conduct psychological evaluations of C. P., L. P., T. R., and S. R. The CPT conducted these psychological evaluations as requested and, on or about January 14, 1999, submitted a report to Mr. Onweazuekwu detailing the findings that were made. The report contained the following recommendation: CPT believes that DCF [the Department] should revoke the Roberts' foster parents license since they are clearly using not only corporal punishment with instruments to discipline children placed in their care, but also fear and intimidation to control the children. Alternative placements should be immediately sought for [T. R.] and [S. R.]. Thereafter, the Department removed T. R. and S. R. from the Roberts' home and, subsequently, initiated proceedings to revoke the Roberts' family foster home license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order revoking Respondents' family foster care license pursuant Section 409.175(8)(b)2, Florida Statutes, based on Mrs. Roberts' use of corporal punishment in violation of Rule 65C-13.010(1)(a)5f, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1999 COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemarie Rinaldi, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue, N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Cleveland and Harolean Roberts 1540 Northwest 203rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Samuel C. Chavers, Acting Agency Clerk Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
