The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request to adopt her grandchildren should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and is the biological grandmother of the children she sought to adopt. The Petitioner and the grandchildren are identified by their initials in this order to ensure confidentiality in the matter. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing adoptions for children within their jurisdiction. It is not disputed that the Respondent, by law, was required to review the instant adoption application. In April 2002, the Respondent contracted with the Children's Home Society for services in connection with adoption proceedings. The subject matter of this case was one of the adoption applications transferred at that time. Accordingly, Mary Bosco and Darlene Levy worked together to review the Petitioner's application and to form an Adoption Review Committee to make a recommendation regarding the instant matter. The Adoption Review Committee met on more than one occasion to consider the facts regarding this Petitioner's ability to parent the four grandchildren. The case worker assigned to this matter raised several concerns that were fully investigated and reviewed. Among those concerns was the fact that the Petitioner's legal husband has a lengthy criminal record, including drug-related offenses. Further, Petitioner's husband was charged with cruelty toward a child and is prohibited from having unsupervised contact with his own children. Additionally, the Petitioner is not able to control the home environment as her extended family comes and goes from the residence. The Petitioner is also ill equipped to deal with the medical and educational needs of the children. The Petitioner's children did not perform well in school and the absenteeism and/or tardy rate for the grandchildren is unacceptable. The Petitioner has not demonstrated any improvement where education is concerned. The Petitioner has not followed up on tutoring or therapy for the grandchildren. Finally, neither the Petitioner nor her spouse has a strong employment history to demonstrate financial stability for the home. Despite several efforts to explain the home environment issues to the Petitioner, as well as a court- ordered participation in a program called "Family Builders," the Petitioner has not demonstrated significant improvement in any of the areas of concern identified by caseworkers and the guardian ad litem. The Petitioner has allowed transient houseguests to reside within the home and to assist with the children. On or about September 23, 2002, the Adoption Review Committee met for its final review of the instant application. At that time the committee determined it would not be in the children's best interests to allow the Petitioner to adopt them. The Petitioner has presented no credible evidence to refute the findings reached by the Adoption Review Committee. Such findings (set forth in Respondent's Exhibit 1 and supported by the testimony of Respondent's witnesses) are adopted by reference. It is undisputed that the Petitioner genuinely loves her grandchildren. Moreover, it is accepted that the Petitioner would do her best to provide a stable home for the children. Unfortunately, based upon the Petitioner's track record to date, it is unlikely the Petitioner will be able to provide the parenting and environment these children require. This finding is supported by the fact that all of the children are doing better academically since they were removed from Petitioner's home. Further, all of the children are in better health according to their guardian ad litem. Thus it must be concluded that the home environment offered by the Petitioner was inadequate to meet the needs of these children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for adoption of the grandchildren. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2003, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Laurence Scher, Esquire Acting Chief District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 U. J. (Address of Record)
The Issue The determinative issue in this cause is whether Petitioners "abused" and "neglected" foster children in their care, as those terms are defined in Sections 39.01(2) and 39.01(45), Florida Statutes (2000). As a result of the alleged abusive neglect, two subsequent issues are raised: (1) whether Petitioners' foster home license should be revoked for the reasons as stated in the Administrative Complaint dated July 20, 2001; and (2) whether Respondent's denial of Petitioners' requests to adopt the "M" sibling and to adopt the "T/S" sibling foster children, based primarily upon the allegations in the Administrative Compliant dated July 20, 2001, as explained in a denial letter dated January 18, 2002, was appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying in person and by taped interviews, the documentary materials received in evidence, stipulations by the parties, evidentiary rulings during the final hearing, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are found. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for receiving and approving applications for foster care licenses and for monitoring, regulating, and if necessary, suspending or revoking foster parent licenses pursuant to Section 409.175, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for receiving, evaluating, approving or denying applications for adoption of foster children pursuant to Section 63.062, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 65C-16, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners' Foster Care Licensure History Petitioners are married and are the parents of two biological children. Mrs. Sawyer was reared with foster children and has always desired to become a foster parent. Petitioners were initially licensed by the Agency as foster parents in October of 1986, and six months later on April 20, 1987, Petitioners voluntarily closed their foster home due to Mrs. Sawyer's complications with the pregnancy of their second child. During the above six-month licensed period, Petitioners successfully fostered ten children, the last child was removed by the Agency from the foster home in March 1987. In December 1986, two months after initial licensing, Petitioners were the subject of an abuse report alleging spanking a child. The Agency's investigation concluded that the abuse report was "unfounded,"4 and closure was recommended by the Agency's investigator. On September 7, 1987, the Agency again licensed Petitioners as foster parents. Eight months thereafter, on May 23, 1988, the Agency again closed Petitioners' foster home. On August 10, 1988, three months later, the Agency, for the third time, licensed Petitioners as foster parents. Mrs. Sawyer acknowledged using corporal discipline on a foster child during the 1988 licensure period. As a result of the corporal punishment incident in 1988, the Agency required Petitioners to attended its Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting (MAPP) classes, which Petitioners attended and completed. The 1988 licensure of Petitioners as foster parents was specifically granted for the "T/S" sibling group who, with voluntary permission of their biological parents, had been living with Petitioners for approximately two months before their official placement with Petitioners by the Agency. Since 1988, the Agency has annually renewed Petitioners' foster care license.5 Responding to the requests of the Agency, Petitioners on occasions fostered as many as 16 to 20 foster children. Petitioners' foster home was frequently used by the Agency for unannounced "overnight" foster care, many of which extended into protracted foster care periods. During periods when the Agency's need for foster home beds was pressing, the Agency's rule-of-five was waived by the Agency's District Administrator so that Petitioners could and did house more children.6 The record reflects no evidence of complaints of abuse or any other complaints during the periods the Agency needed and made use of Petitioners' home to foster children. The evidence of record, viewed chronologically, reflects a protracted period of intense investigation of allegations which, if true, were apparently ongoing over a period of months prior to the filing of Abuse Report 2000-198255, the basis of the Agency's intended revocation of Petitioners' foster care license. Petitioners' latest license was issued on August 24, 2000, and was effective until August 24, 2001. This August 24, 2000, foster home license is the subject of the Agency's revocation notice, which states: The revocation is based on the following reasons: Between December 21, 2000 and March 1, 2001, the Department of Children and Families investigated eleven reports of abuse and neglect involving your home. In Florida Abuse Hotline Report 2000-198255[7] it was concluded that there were verified findings of excessive corporal punishment and confinement, bizarre punishment and excessive restraint committed by Cynthia Sawyer towards several foster children in her care. The report also noted several instances of inappropriate physical punishment, which is a violation of the foster parent disciplinary policy. These incidents are considered "an intentional or negligent act materially affecting the health and safety of children in the home or agency" and a violation of the licensing rules promulgated pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes. Section 409.175(8)(b) 1 and 2 Florida Statutes; 65C- 13.010(1)(b)5 Florida Administrative Code. (emphasis added) The Agency's allegations of neglect and abuse revolved around four specific types of disciplinary activities that are alleged to have occurred on or after August 24, 2000, the date the current foster care license was issued, and to have terminated on or before March 1, 2001, the date the Agency removed children from Petitioners' home. The four specific types of disciplinary activities are: (1) excessive corporal punishment and confinement, (2) inappropriate physical punishment, (3) bizarre punishment, and (4) excessive restraints.8 In support of those allegations, the Agency presented the testimonies of several foster children, video- taped interviews of three foster children made in March 2001, approximately one month after removal from Petitioners' home; the testimony of another foster care parent; the testimony of a Guardian Ad Litem; and the testimonies of several of the Agency's employees. Mike Katz, agency employee, prepared the Administrative Complaint but had no personal knowledge of the abuse allegations contained in Abuse Report 2000-198255, which formed the basis for the Administrative Complaint he prepared. Mr. Katz acknowledged that his understanding of the Agency's practice and policy was that "one incident of corporal punishment" did not equate to foster care license revocation. According to Mr. Katz, evaluating corporal punishment allegations requires all factors be taken into consideration and the totality of circumstances be reviewed; the intended result is a fact specific determination for each case of alleged corporal punishment. Kate Kimball's, the Sawyers' family service counselor, testimony was primarily concerned with agency reports dating from December 3, 1996, through the year 2000. Her testimony regarding and relating to matters that occurred prior to December 21, 2000, are not relevant nor material to issues of foster home license denial as stated in the Administrative Complaint that is challenged by Petitioners. However, Ms. Kimball's testimony regarding the Sawyers' life-style during the period she was their case worker is relevant and material to the issue of denial of the Sawyers' application to adopt the "M" children. The record reflects that in 1999, while fostering the "T/S" and the "M" siblings under the Agency's District Administrator's waiver of the rule-of-five policy, Petitioners were given an "Above Satisfactory" evaluation by the assigned foster care case worker, Kim Bryant. Ms. Bryant reported that the Sawyers are "very involved, supportative of the children's extra curricular activities and educational needs; show children much needed attention and affection; children and foster parents seem very fond of each other and there is much improvement with the children educationally and emotionally and they appear to have adjusted well in the home." Ms. Bryant's report is undisputed and credible. One year later, Hotline Report 2000-078274 was filed containing an allegation of medical negligence against Mrs. Sawyer as a result of her attempt to refill a prescribed medication for a foster child in her care after the child had taken all the medication. In this particular instance, the Agency had failed to provided Mrs. Sawyer with the child's medical record when the child was placed in her foster home. This medical negligence allegation was resolved when the case worker assigned to the Sawyers secured from the child's file the physician's prescription refill order. The Hotline Report was closed by the Agency with "No indicators of alleged maltreatment-or abuse/neglect." On June 26, 2000, and after the Sawyers added separate bedrooms and bathrooms for the girls and separate bedrooms and bathrooms for the boys to their home to accommodate 16 children, their case worker, Ms. Kimball, wrote, "It appeared that the Department has continued to utilize their home, as we have had no alternatives." The home study case worker's comments are revealing and reliable. It is reasonable to infer that the Agency was satisfied with the Sawyers' methods of disciplining foster children in their home, when they met the Agency's need for foster beds. However, when the Agency's need for foster beds were apparently met by other resources their prior position of satisfaction with the Sawyers, for reasons not entirely clear from the record, took a sudden 180-degree turn-about from satisfaction to dissatisfaction, within a six-month time period from June 26, 2000, to December 21, 2000. The case worker assigned to the "M" children, Anjanet Stilwell, reported that the Sawyers' foster home was "a wonderful foster home--they were very cooperative and caring." Case worker, Karen Braden, who was in the home twice weekly regarding kids assigned to her, wrote, "Cindy is great! I have no concerns regarding placement of my kids. I truly don't know how she does it!" I find Ms. Stilwell's and Ms. Braden's opinions acceptable and reflective of the Agency's approved satisfactory view of the Sawyers as foster parents for many children who were housed solely by the Agency's waiver of its rule-of-five policy and for its benefit. One foster care referral report regarding the "T/S" children written by case worker Heather Blair was considered at the Adoption Applicant Review Committee (AARC) staffing. In her report, Ms. Blair summarized Psychologist Lisa Gaise's conclusions that: "3 T/S children reported being paddle [sic] and 'the context in which these clear disclosures were made was so natural as to dispel any questions of the veracity of their statements.'" Apparently the AARC staffing considered Ms. Gaise's comments credible in their decision to deny the adoption application. The fact of the matter is that Ms. Blair's statement regarding the "truth" and acceptance of Lisa Gaise's opinion that the child's statement were true, is not accepted for the truth asserted and, therefore, is not credible.9 Bobby Cooper, another agency witness, commenced his investigation of Abuse Report 2000-198255, on December 21, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Cooper's investigation consisted entirely of reviewing reports of other agency investigators. Mr. Cooper had no personal knowledge nor had he personally sought independent collaboration of statements contained in the reports he reviewed. His testimony is not credible. Kate Kimball, the case worker assigned to Petitioners' foster home, often made announced and unannounced visits to Petitioners' foster home, as required by Agency policy. Ms. Kimball was in close and constant contact with the foster children and the foster parents during her visits to the home. Ms. Kimball was required to (1) observe the foster children, speak in confidence with each child individually, immediately report any "signs" of abuse or "suspected abuse," and to (4) cause "removal" of a child or children from abusive foster home situations. Ms. Kimball never requested nor caused removal of a child from Petitioners' foster home during the period of December 21, 2000, through March 2001, the period the abuse reports were allegedly "verified." Detective Christi Esquinaldo was assigned to investigate this case by Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. Her investigation consisted of interviewing foster child L.S., reviewing the abuse reports, and creating a matrix from those reports. The matrix consisted of Detective Esquinaldo's listing the names of children who were alleged to have been subjected to a specific abusive discipline crossed referenced by the names of the children who made the allegations. According to Detective Esquinaldo, L.S. told her that the Sawyers "made children stand in a corner for three to four hours" as punishment, and Lil David was restrained to a chair for "three to four hours." However, during her testimony at the hearing, L.S. denied having made those statements to Detective Esquinaldo. L.S.'s testimony at the final hearing is credible. In closing her investigation, Detective Esquinaldo recommended to the State Attorney's Office the direct filing of a felony charge of Aggravated Child Abuse against the Sawyers. The Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office, citing "numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the children," declined to file any charges against the Sawyers and closed their files on the matter. After reviewing the children's testimonies of record, I am compelled to agree with the Hillsborough County State Attorney Office that the "inconsistencies of the statements of the children" render their collective testimonies unreliable and insufficient to provide a preponderance of evidence necessary to establish a fact. None of the adult witnesses, presented by the Agency, possessed knowledge acquired through collaboration of the children's stories from independent sources and/or their investigations regarding the abuse allegations alleged in the Complaint. The Agency's employees' initial and total acceptance of the children's recollection of time, i.e. as "all day" and "all night," should have, but did not raise reasonable concern regarding each child's ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality and the child's accuracy of recall as well. The children's story-line, that Petitioners forced each of them to walk, to stand in time-outs, to dig holes, to sleep in their beds or do any other activities "all day" or "all night," was testified to as a form of punishment and not discipline for acting up. Accepting as true, accurate, and realistic, their identical versions of four specific experiences from the several children without more does not equate to credible nor collaborative evidence. The testimonies presented by several foster children at this hearing were, at best, confusing, conflicting and contradictory. When asked specific questions about the several forms and methods of discipline, the unanimity of their responses were: stand in the corner "all night," dig holes "all day," walk in circles "all day," and sleep in the bed "all day." The fact that the children's testimonies clustered in a certain position (sibling groups wanting to stay together as a group and those sibling groups wanting to be moved to another foster home as a group gave almost identical answers to questions relating to specific disciplines) does not mean nor imply that their testimonies were necessarily accurate, realistic, or true. In fact, the record reflects that several of the testimonies initially given by the children to the Agency were in conflict with their testimonies subsequently given to the Agency representatives and testimony given at the final hearing. Considering the children's testimonies in the context of the children's ages; the children's physical sizes; the physical improbability of a small child actually squatting, with knees bent, against a wall with both arms held out in front of the body or held out to the sides of their bodies all day; and their description of time as "all day" and "all-night," rendered their collective testimonies unrealistic, unreliable and, therefore, not credible. Steve Barber, Petitioners' pastor and the one who has interfaced with the foster children, based upon his experience as a former high school football coach, gave undisputed testimony that the physical size and stature of the young children made it physically impossible for any of them to "stand, squat, dig or walk in circles, all day." Based upon the testimony of Mr. Barber and the unrealistic testimonies of the several children, Respondent has failed to prove that Petitioners committed "excesses" in administering policy discipline, by imposing time-outs, separation from other children, grounding, loss of privileges, and by assigning other chores. I find that the cumulative testimonies of the foster children found in the Agency reports in evidence and of those children who testified at the final hearing unreliable, inconsistent, devoid of details, physically impossible in most instances and, therefore, insufficient to establish by a preponderance that the Sawyers subjected them to: (1) excessive corporal punishment and confinement, (2) inappropriate physical punishment, (3) bizarre punishment, and (4) use of excessive restraints as punishment as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. Of the three video-taped interviews reviewed by the undersigned, the interview of D.I. revealed a reliable and detailed account of the daily life and activities of the foster children in the Sawyers' home from an articulate child with personal knowledge and accurate recall of events. First, D.I. was in the Sawyers' foster care for a period of seven months. Second, D.I. appeared to be bright, intelligent, articulate, straight-forward, and he was definite and clear in his responses to questions asked by the Agency's spokesperson. Third, D.I.'s memory of details was complete, uncompromising, realistic, and reasonable. Fourth, D.I. acknowledged that his possibility of being reunited with his biological mother was nonexistent, and he would probably be in foster care until his majority, if not adopted, preferably by the Sawyers. Fifth, he is familiar with and aware of foster children, individually and as sibling groups "working the foster care system for their desired ends by telling stories." During his seven months' stay in foster care with the Sawyers, D.I. testified that he never saw nor was he made aware by other children of any child punished by the Sawyers in the form of being forced to stand in time-out "all day," forced to dig holes "all night," or forced to walk in circles "all day." D.I. knew that Lil L.S. pooped in her pants and smeared the poop over the walls of the foster care residence. He knows this because he was one of the older children who volunteered to clean the poop off the walls; he remembers these incidents because the walls had "white spots" where the cleaning solutions were used. He also remembered because Mrs. Sawyer would put white powder on the bedroom floor leading from Lil L.S.'s room to other parts of the house. In the morning when Lil L.S. was awaken and asked about poop on the walls, she would blame other children, but her foot prints would prove contradiction of the story of not having gotten out of bed during the night. According to D.I., Lil L.S. was never "hosed down outside" the house after pooping on herself. Each time Lil L.S. pooped on herself, Mrs. Cindy would require her to go into her bathroom10 and bathe herself. When asked about household chores and work around the house as a form of punishment, D.I. answered that older children would be offered the opportunity to "work outside" with Mr. Sawyer on "things around the house," only if that child wanted to work outside. If not, the child was given the option to stay outside and play or to go inside and watch T.V., play games, or do other things. D.I. was emphatic that the opportunity to do other things was made available to each child only after that child completed his or her homework. Homework was always first, and some children got in trouble because of not doing or completing their homework. According to D.I., the younger children who played outside would customarily play in the round-about driveway, the yard, and on the Jungle Jim play set. The older children would customarily do other things. D.I.'s examples of "doing things around the house" were: helping Mr. Sawyer work on his truck; putting together and/or repairing the Jungle Jim swing-slide play set; helping to dig a trench line to lay pipe for the new water heater connection; tending to and caring for the animals; planting trees and stuff; and painting and building additional bathrooms and bedrooms onto the house. According to D.I., all outside activities were made available to any children who wished to participate in them instead of playing among themselves. When asked, D.I. was empathic in his answer that no child, "as a form of punishment," was forced to assist Mr. Sawyer in "doing things around the house," if they wanted to help they could, if not, then other activities were available and that no child was handcuffed nor had he seen any (metal) handcuffs at the Sawyers' house, save his pair of red plastic toy handcuffs that came with a toy set the Sawyers gave him. D.I., from observation, knew Lil David to be self-mutilating.11 D.I. recalls that "Lil David would sometimes just pick himself to make himself bleed." During his seven-month stay and on more than one occasion, in passing, D.I. would see Lil David in bed at night with velcro restraints on his wrists and the bed to stop him from picking himself and making himself bleed. "Mrs. Cindy did this to keep Lil David from picking himself when he was asleep."12 Regarding meal times and meals at Mrs. Cindy's, D.I. stated that all the children ate the same meal at the same time "cause there was so many of us and Mrs. Cindy had no time for separate meals and we [older children] helped to feed the young children, we did help." When asked about peanut butter sandwiches as a form of punishment, D.I. responded, "Those children who had been bad or were in time-out at mealtime were separated from the other children and given peanut butter sandwiches to eat while in their time-outs. But Mrs. Cindy would say to them 'say you are sorry and you can join us.'" He never saw nor knew of a child in time-out (against the wall) for "hours." The longest time-out he could recall was about "20 minutes," and that was because the child was "acting up" in the time-out and had additional time added to the time-out. D.I. was familiar with the "T/S" and (other) siblings. He knew from personal experience in foster care that older siblings would instruct their younger siblings on all matters: what to say, when to say it, how to act, and how to act up. D.I. was personally familiar with "foster homes" and the means and methods of "getting out of one" and "staying together" as a sibling group and getting into another as a group. When asked about "corporal punishment" i.e. spanking with a wooden paddle and/or slapping with hands, D.I. testified that during his seven-month stay, he knew of no child to have gotten spanked with a wood paddle. "I never saw a wood paddle." Regarding "getting slapped by Mrs. Cindy" as punishment, D.I. answered that Ms. Cindy would "tap" you on the back of the head, butt, or shoulder "to get your attention, like if she was talking to you and you were watching T.V. and not answering her but she never slapped any of us for punishment." This method of getting one child's attention by touching is reasonable when considered in the context of the Agency's waiver of its rule-of- five policy so as to place as many as 16 to 20 children in the Sawyers' foster care home. 13 The video testimony of D.I. is accurate, detailed, reasonable, realistic, based upon his personal knowledge, undisputed and, therefore, credible. Based in part upon the video testimony of D.I., Respondent has failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the Sawyers subjected a foster child in their care to: (1) excessive corporal punishment and confinement, (2) inappropriate physical punishment, (3) bizarre punishment, and (4) use of excessive restraints for the time period alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Sawyers' admitted use of velcro restraints on Lil David was neither excessive, punitive nor disciplinary, but rather was for Lil David's protection from harming himself. The Sawyers' used velcro restraints on Lil David during the day only when he was in time-out and sitting in a small rocking chair and during the night when he was put to bed. The evidence of record by testimonies of virtually every witnesses who knew Lil David knew him to be a self-mutilator. The use of restraints is an acceptable, preventative method for protection in this situation. The record contains no evidence that the Agency provided the Sawyers with an evaluation report of Lil David upon his placement nor during his stay within their foster home. Lil David's medical report would have advised the Sawyers of Lil David's self-mutilation problem. It is a reasonable assumption that had the Agency provided Lil David's medical records, the Sawyers would have been alerted to Lil David's self-mutilation problem and would have had the benefit of the Agency's instructions regarding care and protection for Lil David's problem of self-mutilation. The Sawyers' admitted use of velcro restraints reflects a caring and sincere effort of the foster parents to protect the child from hurting himself. In the absence of information from the Agency regarding Lil David's condition, the Sawyers' use of an acceptable, safe and preventative method of care for this particular problem reflects their efforts to comply with the "spirit" of the rules regarding foster parent responsibilities. The record contains no evidence that the Sawyers' use of velcro restraints to prevent Lil David's self- mutilation was "willfully harmful" or "neglect" or an "abusive" act of intentional punishment. Bobby Cooper's, child protection investigator, reported findings and conclusions were based entirely upon statements provided by individuals he interviewed. The record contains no evidence of collaboration to substantiate testimonies of the children. Therefore, Mr. Cooper's testimony is hearsay without support and therefore, not credible. Finally, consideration is given to what is not in evidence. First, the record in this case contains no evidence of a child alleged to have suffered ongoing neglect and abuse in the form of excessive, bizarre,14 and inappropriate punishment, or to have borne body marks or bruises resulting from the alleged treatment by the Sawyers. Second, the record in this case contains no evidence of a Sawyer-housed foster child to have suffered "physical, mental or emotional injury" as the result of the alleged negligent and abusive treatment. Third, the record contains no evidence from which it could be inferred that a foster child removed from Petitioners' home suffered a "discernible and substantial impairment in the ability to function within the normal range of performance and behavior" as a direct result of the alleged abusive discipline.15 The evidence of record supports a reasonable conclusion that Mrs. Sawyer was proactive in seeking the assistance of local politicians and state officials to accomplish her apparent goal of responsive and exceptional services from the Department for her foster children. It is undisputed that the Sawyers, with the advice and consent of the Department, had more foster children than was reasonable to expect only two adults to provide a minimal of custodial care. Permitting the Sawyers to house as many as 16 to 20 foster children, plus their two biological children, at any point in time, was permissive and self serving by the Department and was overreaching acceptance by the Sawyers. It is a reasonable inference that in this case both the Department and the Sawyers engaged in a mutual course of conduct to satisfy their respective needs and desires. When the mutually beneficial relationship came to a close, a reversal of opinions and recommendations from the Department regarding the Sawyers occurred. The Sawyers, who had been described by the Department as "unbelievable foster parents," became merely unbelievable when confronted with and evaluated by conflicting stories of 14 foster children removed from their home. Denial of Adoption Application for the M sibling group Turning to evidence in the record regarding the denial of Petitioners' application to adopt the four "M" siblings, the fact that some animosity existed between Ms. Gains16 and Mrs. Sawyer, became readily apparent during Ms. Gains' testimony. The existence of animosity was further confirmed by Ms. Gains' detailed chronology of alleged abusive acts and omissions by Mrs. Sawyer over a period in excess of one year. When answering questions asked by the Agency's representative regarding Ms. Gains' statements and opinion of Mrs. Sawyer, D.I. answered: "She [sic] said handcuffs and other things about Mrs. Cindy so as to get kids moved out of Mrs. Cindy's house to her house." Based upon D.I. testimony above, Ms. Gains' testimony given at the hearing and her written report in evidence is biased and unreliable. In the evaluation and review of Petitioners' adoption request, Respondent appropriately engaged in a holistic evaluation of all abuse reports filed, investigative reports, personal opinions, and comments from Department employees, community members and other foster parents, dating from as early as 1986 to the date of the adoption denial. Respondent, in reevaluation of Petitioners' adoption request for the "M" children, should hereinafter be guided by the Findings of Fact herein that allegations of excessive discipline as contained in the Administrative Compliant herein were not proven by the testimonies of the Agency's witnesses and documentary evidence. Therefore, allegations found in Abuse Report 2000-198255 reported or alleged to have occurred within the time period of December 21, 2000, through March 1, 2001, shall not be considered by the Agency in its reevaluation of the Sawyers' application to adopt the "M" siblings; being mindful that the "M" siblings' desire to be adopted by the Sawyers is in the "M" child(ren)'s best interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting renewal of Petitioners' Foster Care License. It is further RECOMMENDED, that in accord with the expressed desires of the "M" siblings to be adopted by Petitioners, that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioners' application to adopt the "M" siblings. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The parties stipulated that a concise statement of the nature of the controversy is: "Petitioner revoked Respondent's license to operate as a child-placing agency under 409.175, Fla. Stat." The issues in the case are delineated with specificity in the Administrative Complaint dated February 20, 2006. Petitioner alleges that Respondent's license is revoked for the following reasons: Failure to properly close the agency as required by F.A.C. 65C-15.035. Repeated failure to provide the Department with the agency's 2004 financial audit as required by F.A.C. 65C-15.010 and failure to provide the Department with the agency's 2005 financial audit; Multiple code violations documented on February 10, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on September 14, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on October 18, 2005 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on January 19, 2006 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Multiple code violations documented on February 17, 2006 in the Child Placing Agency Inspection Sheet attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; Entering into contracts with a prospective adoptive parent for the placement and adoption of a child, taking the prospective adoptive parent's money and not placing a child in their home for adoption, and, thereafter failing to return money paid for fees, costs and expenses advanced by the prospective adoptive parent which were refundable. In short, the agency charged the prospective adoptive parent for fees, costs and expenses, and, when the agency failed to deliver on the contract it did not return the advanced money required to be refunded. This is in violation of sections 63.097 and/or 409.175, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. 65C-15.010; Entering into contracts with a prospective adoptive parent for the placement and adoption of a child, taking the prospective adoptive parent's money, placing a child in their home for adoption, and, thereafter failing to return money advanced to pay for fees, costs and expenses associated with the adoption which were not expended. In short, the agency charged the prospective adoptive parent for fees, costs and expenses, and, when the funds were not actually needed to cover the allowable fees, costs or expenses the agency failed return the advanced money. This is in violation of sections 63.097 and/or 409.175, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. 65C-15.010. In its response to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Homecoming Adoptions, Inc., has denied each of the nine listed reasons for Petitioner's decision to revoke its license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Florida non-profit corporation, doing business in Orlando, Florida. It is co-owned by Kurt Alexander and Kendall Rigdon; both are officers of the corporation and are attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. On March 2, 2005, Petitioner issued a Certificate of License to Respondent to operate a child-placing agency. The license was to continue in force for one year from the date of issue unless renewed, withdrawn or revoked for cause. On February 15, 2006, Kurt Alexander advised Petitioner on behalf of Respondent that "we are withdrawing our application for licensure renewal at this time." During relevant times, to wit, March 2, 2005, to February 15, 2006, Respondent entered into contracts (titled "adoptive agency agreement") with individuals seeking to adopt children wherein Respondent undertook to "assist the Adoptive Parent in commencing and completing the adoption." The contracts contemplate the Adoptive Parent traveling "to the foreign country to complete the adoption process and accept physical custody of the child." Evidence was offered that Respondent assisted with adoptions which took place in Russia, China, Guatemala, El Salvador, and other countries. In each instance, the formality of the adoption was effected by individuals or agencies located in the foreign country. Although a licensed child-placing agency, Respondent had never placed a child for adoption within or without the State of Florida. Respondent became a licensed child-placing agency in an abundance of caution in the event it had to undertake a Florida adoption. Respondent never had physical custody of any child on either a temporary or permanent basis. On February 17, 2006, Kurt Alexander again advised Petitioner that Respondent "does not wish to renew or retain its license as a child-placing agency in Florida." He further advised that [I]n an abundance of caution and in compliance with 65C-15.035, Homecoming will do the following Transfer all children to the Dept. or another licensed child placement agency. There are none. Transfer responsibility for all children in temporary placement, etc. There are none. Transfer services to all other clients. Will do. On or about February 17, 2006, all active and closed files of Respondent, the licensed child-placing agency, were transferred to the law firm of Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP. Thereafter, Kurt Alexander, in his capacity as an attorney with that firm, requested that Petitioner refrain from examining the files that had previously been the property of Respondent, as they were now law firm property and "confidential." On September 14, 2005; October 18, 2005; January 19, 2006; and February 17, 2006, Petitioner conducted annual and complaint inspections of Respondent's files. Employee personnel files lacked applications, references, local/FDLE/FBI criminal background checks, degree verifications, and other required information. Some adoption files lacked completed home studies, character references, background studies, criminal background checks, and abuse registry checks. In addition, a required financial audit was not available. Respondent's executive director was terminated in August 2005; Petitioner was not notified of his termination. No evidence was offered by Petitioner regarding the allegations of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking the license of Respondent, Homecoming Adoptions, Inc., effective February 20, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Taylor, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 T. Shane DeBoard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1114 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Copeland, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Luci D. Hadi, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's foster home license should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a foster home license issued by Respondent. Petitioner was recruited to be a foster parent by Florida Baptist Children's Home (FBCH). FBCH is a recruiter of foster parents for Respondent and holds a contract with Respondent to that effect. FBCH performs extensive background checks on and interviews persons who have been identified as potential foster parents. Subsequently, all paperwork on homes recommended by FBCH for licensure as foster homes is submitted to Respondent. Respondent makes the determination as to whether to issue a license. Respondent has licensed all foster homes recommended by FBCH. FBCH recommended to Respondent that Petitioner be licensed. Respondent and FBCH have an agreement, referred to as a placement performance agreement, regarding the foster parents who have been recruited by FBCH and licensed by Respondent. The agreement requires, among other things, the presence of FBCH at any time Respondent wishes to do anything in connection with the home of a foster parent recommended by FBCH. One of the requirements of a foster parent is to receive 30 hours of training on, among other things, how to be a foster parent, how to take care of foster children, and the duties and responsibilities of a foster parent. As part of the training, discussions on the abuse of foster care children and the sexual problems of foster care children are held. Petitioner received and successfully completed this training. Additionally, prior to the training, foster parents attend orientation during which the sexual abuse of foster care children is also discussed. On March 26, 2001, Respondent placed C.Q., a foster child, in Petitioner's home. Prior to C.Q.'s placement in Petitioner's home, Respondent had placed six foster care children in her home since Petitioner's licensure. Prior to C.Q.'s placement, Respondent's social worker, who was C.Q.'s counselor, visited Petitioner's home. At the time, Petitioner was being visited by her minor granddaughter (two years of age) for several days, and Petitioner made Respondent aware of such visitation. Respondent's social worker examined the sleeping arrangements in Petitioner's home. Petitioner had a bedroom for herself, in which she and her granddaughter slept, and a separate bedroom with two beds. C.Q. would be sleeping in the separate bedroom. The separate bedroom was close to and visible from the living room. At the time of C.Q.'s placement, neither Petitioner nor FBCH had received C.Q.'s "green book." A green book contains a foster child's background and would reveal a foster child's history regarding sexual abuse.1 Consequently, C.Q.'s green book would reveal whether she was abused and whether she was an abuser.2 Whether a foster child was sexually abused may not be known by Respondent at the time of placement with a foster parent. At the time of placement, Respondent was not aware that C.Q. was a sexual abuse victim and a sexual abuser. If Respondent discovers that a foster child has been sexually abused, it requires the foster parent to sign a Family Safety Contract. The main purpose of a Family Safety Contract is to make sure that foster parents ensure the well-being of children in their home and to remind foster parents of the condition of sexually abused children. The Family Safety Contract contains, among other things, three sections: "Prevention Rules," "Intervention Strategies," and "Signatures." The Prevention Rules section contains 16 paragraphs, which have standard language, and three of the paragraphs have blank lines for information to be filled-in by Respondent's social worker. The three paragraphs state the following: The following people are approved to supervise contact between the children: must have his/her own room. may never be placed in a bedroom with a younger child. The Intervention Strategies section states in pertinent part the following: 1. In the event that prevention measures break down and child-on-child sexual abuse occurs or appears to be imminent, caretaker will immediately. Separate the children. Report the incident to the child(ren)'s caseworker(s) and to the Abuse Hotline. Cooperate with authorities conducting an investigation. The Signatures section contains spaces for, among other things, the signatures of the caregiver, family service counselor, and family service counselor supervisor, together with a space next to each signature for the date each signed. On April 11, 2001, Respondent's social worker reviewed a Family Safety Contract, regarding C.Q., with Petitioner. Petitioner signed the Family Safety Contract the same day. FBCH was not present during the review of the Family Safety Contract with Petitioner, which was contrary to the agreement that FBCH had with Respondent. FBCH was not notified by Respondent of the review of the Family Safety Contract with Petitioner. The agreement between Respondent and FBCH requires, among other things, the presence of FBCH whenever Respondent reviews a Family Safety Contract with one of FBCH's foster parents. Before a Family Safety Contract is presented to a foster parent, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention Rules should be completed by Respondent. Petitioner contends that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Prevention Rules were not completed at the time the Family Safety Contract was reviewed with her. Petitioner testified that she would not have permitted the placement of a child, who had been sexually abused, with her and that the social worker/counselor for C.Q. stated to her (Petitioner) that all foster parents signed the Family Safety Contract. Petitioner briefly reviewed the Family Safety Contract and signed it. Respondent contends that the said paragraphs were completed. The social worker/counselor for C.Q. who reviewed the Family Safety Contract with Petitioner did not testify at hearing nor was her testimony preserved by deposition. The social worker/counselor for C.Q. was out of the country on leave and her leave was approved in February 2002. However, the supervisor of the social worker/counselor for C.Q. testified that the social worker/counselor executed an affidavit and testified as to what the affidavit stated regarding the completion of paragraphs 4 and 5. The affidavit was not offered or entered into evidence. Further, the supervisor testified that she, as a supervisor, would not have signed the Family Safety Contract with blank paragraphs. An executed Family Safety Contract was entered into evidence. Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention Rules state as follows: The following people are approved to supervise contact between the children: Carmen Infante Rep. of Dept. of Children and Families Rep. of Florida Baptist C should must have his/her own room. C may never be placed in a bedroom with a younger child. (C.Q.'s name was blackened out on the copy entered into evidence, leaving only an initial, in order to comply with the requirement that confidentiality be maintained.) Paragraph 4 was modified by Respondent striking the word "must" and inserting "should" which indicated that it was not mandatory that C.Q. have her own room. The change made in paragraph 4 reflected Petitioner's bedroom arrangements for foster children. The signature lines contained the signatures of Petitioner, the social worker/counselor for C.Q., and the supervisor of the social worker/counselor for C.Q. The date that each person signed the Family Safety Contract was April 11, 2001. Considering the testimony, evidence and proof required, the contention of Petitioner is found to be more credible and a finding of fact is made that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Family Safety Contract were not completed at the time that the Family Safety Contract was reviewed with Petitioner. Subsequent to the placement of C.Q. with Petitioner on March 26, 2001, and to the signing of the Family Safety Contract on April 11, 2001, but prior to on or about May 28, 2001, Respondent placed another foster child, J.F., with Petitioner. The record fails to indicate the date on which J.F. was placed with Petitioner. J.F. was younger than C.Q. J.F. was sexually abused. Respondent did not inform Petitioner that J.F. was sexually abused. Before placing J.F. with Petitioner, Respondent was aware of the number and location of Petitioner's bedrooms and the sleeping arrangements Petitioner had for foster children. Consequently, Respondent was aware or should have been aware that C.Q. and J.F. would be sharing the same bedroom, but not the same bed. In spite of this awareness by Respondent, it placed J.F. with Petitioner. Petitioner placed C.Q. and J.F. together in the separate bedroom. Each child had their own bed in the separate bedroom. Respondent, in paragraph 4 of the Family Safety Contract, indicated that C.Q. "should" have her own room. Petitioner's bedroom arrangements would not accommodate separate bedrooms for the foster children, and Respondent was aware of such arrangements. Petitioner complied with the Family Safety Contract. Petitioner was able to view the bedroom, where the foster children were located, from the living room. The door to the bedroom was not closed. On or about May 28, 2001, Petitioner went to the foster children's bedroom to check on them. Upon entering the bedroom, she discovered the children engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior. Petitioner immediately stopped the inappropriate behavior. Petitioner notified both FBCH and Respondent of what she had observed. The foster children were removed from Petitioner's home. Respondent has not placed any more foster children with Petitioner since the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order renewing the foster home license of Carmen Infante. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 25th day of July, 2002.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's foster parent application for adoption of the minor child, S. J., should be granted.
Findings Of Fact S.J. was abandoned at birth. Moses and Juanita Pitchford served as foster parents of the child from the age of two days until March 30, 1998, when the child was over two years old. S.J. was observed by several of Respondent's employees as not behaving like other children her age. She had a flat effect, not laughing, playing or verbalizing as other children who visited Respondent's offices did. Subsequent evaluations of the child established that S.J. was developmentally delayed in speech, physical, and cognitive skills. S.J. was then referred to Easter Seals for services to assist her in the speech, physical, and cognitive skills areas. The Pitchfords' care had never been criticized in any of the Respondent's home evaluation forms completed by Gwen Tennant, the home care counselor employed by Respondent. Only when Juanita Pitchford applied to adopt S.J. did Tennant assert that Juanita Pitchford was not providing adequate care for the child. Tennant's concern was based on the fact that S.J. was not receiving the maximum exposure to an Easter Seals program for which she had qualified. The Pitchfords were never formally informed of this or any other deficiency. The evidence establishes that the Pitchfords presented S.J. at the program four days per week out of the total five days for which she was eligible. Following Respondent's denial by letter dated April 13, 1998, of Petitioner's foster parent application for adoption, Respondent has continued to place foster children, including infants, in the Pitchford home. The rights of the child's biological parents were terminated by court order dated June 17, 1997, due to their abandonment of the child. The court noted in its order that: Testimony adduced revealed that the child can and has formed a significant relationship with the parental substitute as has been established in her current foster care placement. The foster parents are the only parents she has ever known. The court's order also stated: [T]he child is currently being given excellent care by foster parents who love and care for [S.J.], and consider [S.J.] to be their child. On March 30, 1998, S.J. was removed to the home of Betty Allen, another foster parent. Allen is not married, cares for six other foster children under the age of six years, and works at a full-time job outside the home. Consequently, S.J. is delivered to day care on a regular basis for five days each week. During four of those days, she is later taken to the Easter Seals program by day care personnel for four and one-half hours. Allen cares for the foster children in her home from approximately 5:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. in the evening. She drops the children at day care before 8:00 a.m. each day. In contrast, Petitioner is not employed outside the home, remains there throughout the day, and is able to provide intense daily interaction with S.J.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the application of Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger L. D. Williams, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 James C. Cumbie, Esquire One Independent Drive, Suite 3204 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 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
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's license to operate a foster care home.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was licensed as a therapeutic foster parent. Respondent issued this license to Petitioner through the Devereux Foundation, which operates and maintains a network of foster homes to serve dependent children in Respondent's custody. Respondent places children in therapeutic foster when they have been exposed to a severe degree of physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse, as well as extreme neglect and/or abandonment. Such children require special care and cannot be disciplined like children in a stable nuclear family. Therapeutic foster parents should never spank or use other physical methods of punishment or behavior management on these children. Many therapeutic foster children have acute and unresolved issues with control and authority. In such cases, attempts by authority figures to assert rigid control over the children will likely provoke emotionally charged oppositional reactions by the children. This is especially true when the children have not developed a relationship with the authority figures. The likelihood that such oppositional reactions will occur is much greater when authority figures attempt to impose their will on the children with the use of physical force. Children in foster care experience great difficulty in learning to trust others. The inability to trust others is reinforced when a near-stranger makes demands on therapeutic foster children, then uses physical force to compel submission. Children from dysfunctional families often experience violence in the homes of their natural parents. The children learn at an early age to respond with violence to stressful situations. The use of physical force on foster children thus generates a real and severe risk of physical injury to the foster children, the foster parents, and innocent bystanders. One purpose of therapeutic foster care is to help children learn that violent behavior is not acceptable. When foster parents use physical force to compel obedience, they reinforce the lessons learned in the homes of their natural parents at the expense of the lessons the foster care program attempts to teach. Therapeutic foster parents undergo special training before they become licensed. The Model Approach to Parenting and Partnership (MAPP) training that all foster parents receive places special emphasis on the emotional fragility of children in foster care and the consequent need to avoid confrontation with foster children. In other words, MAPP training teaches foster parents not to engage in power struggles with their charges. MAPP training emphasizes the use of positive discipline for the inevitable situations in which foster children test the boundaries set by the foster parents. These methods include reinforcing acceptable behavior, verbal disapproval, loss of privileges, and redirection. Any form of verbal abuse or physical force is strictly prohibited. Petitioner received all of the training described above. In March 2001, a sibling group of two sisters (S.M.1 and S.M.2) and a brother (D.M.) were living in a therapeutic foster home operated by Brad and Sharon Carraway through the Devereux Foundation. Mr. and Mrs. Carraway were licensed therapeutic foster parents. Respondent and the Devereux Foundation have a policy that allows for substitute foster care when therapeutic foster parents need some time away from their foster children. In that case, Devereux arranges for another licensed therapeutic foster home in its network to care for the foster children for a period of time, usually a weekend. This arrangement is known as respite foster care. During March 2001, the Carraways needed a weekend away from their foster children to take care of some family business. At that time, Loretta Kelly was the foster care program manager for Devereux in the North Florida area. Ms. Kelly made arrangements for Petitioner and his wife to take the children during the weekend of March 23-25, 2001. The children arrived in Petitioner's home late in the afternoon of Friday, March 23, 2001. As S.M.1 and S.M.2 settled into their room, Petitioner advised them that supper would be served in five minutes. S.M.1 then announced that she was not hungry and would not be going to supper. Petitioner replied that S.M.1 could either go to the table for supper or he would be back in five minutes and make her go to the table. Five minutes later, Petitioner returned to the bedroom. He told S.M.1, who was sitting on the bed, to come in to supper. When S.M.1 refused again, Petitioner grabbed S.M.1 by the wrists and tried to drag her into the dining room. A struggle ensued with S.M.1 yelling for Petitioner to let go. During the struggle, S.M.1's wrist watch broke, leaving scratches on her arm. S.M.2 was in the hall. Hearing her sister call for help, S.M.2 ran in to help S.M.1. S.M.2 pushed Petitioner away from her sister. Petitioner then grabbed S.M.2 by the wrists and struggled with her for over a minute. During the struggle, S.M.2 slid down to a sitting position with her back against the wall. S.M.2 then used her feet in an attempt to break free from Petitioner. The struggle left S.M.2 with a scar from a scratch she received on her arm. Petitioner finally gave up and called the girls' therapist, Lori Farkas, to complain about the situation. S.M.2 heard Petitioner state that he wanted the girls out of his home. The incident was reported to Respondent. Subsequently, Respondent commenced a child protective investigation into the allegations; the investigation was still open on April 20, 2001. Petitioner became angry when he learned what the children told Respondent's investigators. He telephoned Ms. Kelly on the afternoon of April 20, 2001. He accused the children of lying and asserted that they should be punished. He threatened to file battery charges against the children and have them arrested if they did not change their story and "tell the truth." Next, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Carraway. He told Ms. Carraway that she ought to be teaching the girls morals and honesty. He accused the girls of lying. Petitioner informed Ms. Carraway that he was going to consult an attorney and have the girls arrested at school for assault and battery. Petitioner told Ms. Carraway that he would be more believable in light of the children's background. S.M.1 was with Ms. Carraway during Petitioner's telephone call. Ms. Carraway and S.M.1 wrote notes to each other regarding Petitioner's comments during the telephone call. Both girls were apprehensive for some time after this telephone call about the possibility of being arrested. Ms. Carraway called Ms. Kelly immediately after talking to Petitioner. Ms. Kelly then called Petitioner to instruct him not to make any further calls to the Carraway home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order revoking Petitioner's therapeutic foster license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Motes 2023 Duneagle Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32311 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioners should be approved as adoptive parents.
Findings Of Fact The Gibsons are husband and wife and are residents of Niceville, Florida. It is their desire to adopt a special needs child. Neither Gibson is a parent of natural children. The Department, in accordance with Chapters 39, 63, and 409, Florida Statutes, is the agency which is tasked with determining the eligibility of persons who apply to become adoptive parents in Florida. Constance Aldridge is an adoption worker and family services counselor for the Department. She has worked at that position for seven years. She has a degree in social work. Ms. Aldridge testified that special needs children test boundaries in an attempt to determine the permanency of their residence in the adoptive home. Special needs children are apt to cause extensive turmoil as they work through this process. Ms. Aldridge participated in the adoption review committee. She voted to deny the Gibsons' application because special needs children cause great stress on the adoptive household and she did not believe the Gibsons could cope with it. Sally Lee Townsend is a supervisor with the Department and has worked with the Department since 1992. She has been supervising adoptions since 2000. She works specifically with special needs adoptions. She testified that special needs children are those that are hard to place because they are older, or have medical, mental health, emotional problems, or are African-American or biracial. Ms. Townsend reviewed the Gibsons' application. She had concerns about the mental health history of the applicants as well as a history of sexual abuse in the case of Ms. Gibson. Special needs children typically have been through the foster care system and have experienced multiple moves and when they get to the point that they are going to be adopted they are anticipating that the placement will be permanent. If the children are placed, and then the placement is terminated, they may suffer attachment disorders and multiple mental health problems. Kathi Guy works for the Department in the family safety office. She is a family services program specialist. She has held this job for two and one-half years. She has worked for the Department for a total of 20 years. Ms. Guy reviewed the entire file with regard to the Gibsons' application. She felt the Gibsons had a multitude of issues which would disqualify them as adoptive parents of a special needs child. She chaired the adoption review committee. The adoption review committee recommended denial of the Gibsons' application because Ms. Gibson has a long mental health history including five inpatient treatments, has suffered from depression and a bi-polar disorder, and has a history of being on the receiving end of sexual abuse from more than one abuser. Moreover, the adoption review committee found that Mr. Gibson had a history of refusing to take medication for his mental problems. Shirley Guthrie has known Ms. Gibson since 1971. She helped raise Ms. Gibson. Although she doesn't know much about Mr. Gibson, a few years ago she did not believe Ms. Gibson would be a good parent but she believes Ms. Gibson would be a good parent now. Janice MacNichol has known Ms. Gibson for 31 years and has known Mr. Gibson for four years. She sees the Gibsons almost every day. She is aware that Ms. Gibson has been diagnosed with depression but doesn't think that would prevent her from being a good adoptive parent of special needs children. Ms. MacNichol has three children with medical problems and Ms. Gibson has helped raise them. Ms. MacNichol has worked as a teacher's assistant with learning impaired, emotionally impaired, and physically impaired children for ten to 15 years. She believes that Ms. Gibson would be a good parent to special needs children. Joe Skelly is a licensed psychotherapist in the State of Florida and is in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, for nine years. He has worked as a clinical therapist for Brideway, which is a community mental health agency. He was accepted as an expert witness in the mental health field. Ms. Gibson was in psychotherapy with Mr. Skelly beginning in 1990 or 1991 and he continues to provide her therapy. He opined that Ms. Gibson had a personality disorder and depression but that currently she no longer meets the diagnostic criteria for a personality disorder. He opined that her depression was under control. Mr. Skelly noted that Ms. Gibson was very open to professional help. He observed that Ms. Gibson had been a victim of sexual abuse but thought that did not mean that she would be a sexual abuser herself. He observed that her attitude toward children is very nurturing. Mr. Skelly also knows Mr. Gibson and believes he is one of the kindest men he has ever met; she believes that the two compliment each other. He is aware that Mr. Gibson has attention deficit disorder but he does not believe that would interfere with his ability to take care of children. However, Mr. Skelly opined that stress could affect Ms. Gibson's mental health status. Mr. Skelly provided marital counseling to the Gibsons four or five years ago. Marital problems arose because Mr. Gibson had lived with his parents until he married, and Ms. Gibson had lived alone for a long time. They still have some unresolved marital issues. Mr. Skelly noted that Ms. Gibson had been hospitalized for depression on several occasions. Generally, when she felt that her depression was getting to the point that she might execute a suicidal threat she would contact Mr. Skelly and he would have her hospitalized. Mr. Skelly has observed Ms. Gibson with children and he believes she would never become physically aggressive with a child. All of the testimony of Mr. Skelly is taken as accurate. Jamie Washburn has four children and her husband has six children of which she is the stepmother. The Gibsons have cared for the children on a number of occasions. Ms. Washburn noted that the Gibsons are very calm with the children and are very loving. She said that the Gibsons have a solid marriage. She is aware that Ms. Gibson has been diagnosed with depression, but she feels that does not affect the care she gives to the children. Judy Welch has been friends with the Gibsons for about six years. She was a registered nurse for ten years. She met Ms. Gibson when they were both in a treatment program. She has seen the Gibsons interact with children and described them as being loving and caring. She believes the Gibsons would be excellent adoptive parents for special needs children. Ms. Gibson testified that she has had many children in her care. She stated that she has suffered several stressful situations in her life but that she now has control of her life. She testified she could take care of a child with minor disabilities but could not handle a child with severe disabilities. She would not attempt to take a child with a severe handicap. Ms. Gibson had been sexually abused by several people over a long period of time. This abuse continued even when she was an adult. Her brother was one of the perpetrators of the abuse, although she still maintains a relationship with her brother. Ms. Gibson testified that she has been diagnosed with a personality disorder and depression. On two occasions subsequent to her marriage she has committed herself to a hospital for the treatment of mental illness. Ms. Gibson stated that she could not really control her depression. She stated that when she experiences stress she finds it necessary to commit herself to a hospital. Ms. Gibson stated that she would like to adopt a child under the age of five years. Mr. Gibson testified that he and his wife could not have children. He said he and Ms. Gibson decided that they had reached the point where, "We can handle a child." He noted that the first two years of their marriage were rough but that through the use of therapy they have learned a lot. He admits to being co-dependent for a while but he has learned to adjust and become more independent. Mr. Gibson testified that he had a "pre-diagnosis" of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He was given medicine to control it but he said it was too strong for him. It caused intense hyperactivity and he couldn't sleep.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds Petitioners unqualified to be adoptive parents. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Joseph Gibson Rebecca Anne Gibson 195 Homestead Street Niceville, Florida 32578 Rick Cserep, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Suite 601 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Katherine A. Kearney, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's foster care license should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Cathy Taylor (Petitioner) was issued a foster care license by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Respondent). On October 25, 1994, Petitioner signed an "Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for Dependent Children (Substitute Care Agreement) with Respondent, agreeing to abide by or with certain conditions which were considered essential for the welfare of foster children in her care. The Substitute Care Agreement provided in pertinent part: We are fully and directly responsible to the department for the care of the child. * * * 6. We will not give the child into the care or physical custody of any other person(s), including the natural parent(s), without the consent of a representative of the department. * * * 9. We will accept dependent children into our home for care only from the department and will make no plans for boarding other children or adults. * * * 11. We will notify the department immediately of any change in our address, employment, living arrangements, family composition, or law enforcement involvement. * * * We will comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the department. * * * We will immediately report any injuries or illness of a child in our care to the department. * * * 19. We will abide by the department's discipline policy which we received during the MAPP training. On October 13, 1993, Petitioner received a certificate from Respondent for successful completion of the MAPP training. On October 25, 1994, Petitioner signed a "Discipline Policy Agreement" (Discipline Agreement). The Discipline Agreement provides in pertinent part: [T]he following disciplinary practices are FORBIDDEN on our children. FAILURE OF THE FOSTER PARENT(S) ... TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF THE CHILD(REN) FOR AN INVESTI- GATION AND RESULT IN THE CLOSURE OF YOUR HOME. * * * Hitting a child with ANY object. Slapping, smacking, whipping, washing mouth out with soap, or ANY other form of physical discipline. * * * (6) Delegating authority for punishment to another child or person that is not the Foster Parent(s) ... NO OTHER CHILD, ADOLESCENT, OR ADULT IN THE HOUSEHOLD SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE. On October 11, 1995, Petitioner and Trevor Barnes signed a "Bilateral Service Agreement" (Bilateral Agreement) with Respondent, agreeing to abide by or with several conditions which were considered essential for the welfare of the children placed in the foster home. The Bilateral Agreement provides in pertinent part: 2. We are fully and directly responsible to the Department for the care of the child. * * * We will not give the child into the care or physical custody of any other person(s), including the natural parent(s), without the consent of a representative of the department.... * * * 8. We will accept dependent children into our home for care only from the Department and will make no plans for boarding other children or adults. We will notify the Department if any adult relative or family members returns to live in the home. * * * 10. We will notify the Department immediately of any change in our address, employment, living arrangements, arrest record, health status or family composition, as well as any special needs of the child (i.e. health, school problems, emotional problems). * * * We will comply with all requirements for a licensed foster home as prescribed by the Department. * * * We will provide a nurturing, supportive, family- like home environment. * * * We understand that any breach of the Agreement may result in the immediate removal of the child(ren) and revocation of the license. At that time, Trevor Barnes was Petitioner's fiance. They were married in January 1996 and have, therefore, been married for less than one year. On October 11, 1995, Petitioner and Trevor Barnes signed a Discipline Agreement. The pertinent language of the Discipline Agreement was no different from the one signed on October 25, 1994. In December 1994, minor foster child N.R. was placed in the care of Petitioner. In 1995, minor foster children V.M. and J.M., two sisters, were placed in the care of Petitioner. Petitioner was responsible for the supervision and care of the foster children. Petitioner allowed her sister, an adult, and her sister's son, who was not placed with her under foster care, to live in her home. At the time, her relatives had no other place to live. Petitioner did not inform Respondent that her relatives were living with her. Petitioner violated the Substitute Care Agreement and the Bilateral Agreement. At times, Petitioner left the children under the supervision and in the care of Mr. Barnes and her sister, thereby, violating the Substitute Care Agreement and the Bilateral Agreement. On November 23, 1995, Thanksgiving day, one of Respondent's representatives, who was transporting V.M. and J.M. to visit with their prospective adoptive family, became aware of marks on one of V.M.'s legs. Respondent's representative overheard V.M. tell J.M. to look at what "mommy" had done. Respondent's representative examined V.M.'s leg and discovered marks on V.M.'s leg. She questioned V.M., regarding the marks, and V.M. confirmed what Respondent's representative had overheard. Also, V.M. informed Respondent that Petitioner spanked both she and her sister, J.M. Respondent's representative determined that the marks were consistent with marks which would result from striking the child's leg with a metal hanger. However, she could not determine if the marks were fresh or recent or old scars because she was not trained to make such a determination. There was no other evidence as to any other observations made regarding the marks. Respondent's counselor, assigned to V.M. and J.M., reported the incident. An investigation was begun by Respondent for alleged abuse. Neither V.M. nor J.M. testified at the hearing. The investigator who conducted the investigation on the alleged abuse did not testify. Petitioner denies striking V.M. with a metal hanger or with any object. Moreover, she denies having ever inflicted corporal punishment on the children. Her method of punishing the children was taking away their privileges to do the things that they enjoyed. Further, Mr. Barnes questioned V.M., regarding the marks, who told Mr. Barnes that the natural mother inflicted the marks on V.M. Respondent was unable to provide evidence as to the last period of time that the children had visited with their natural parent(s). Petitioner did not report the marks on V.M.'s leg to Respondent. Petitioner violated the Substitute Care Agreement. Regarding spanking the children, prior to the discovery of the marks on V.M.'s leg, Respondent suspected that Petitioner was spanking the children. Respondent's counselor to V.M. and J.M. questioned Petitioner as to whether she was spanking the children. Petitioner denied any spanking and responded with her method of punishment as indicated above. But, also, Petitioner informed Respondent's counselor that perhaps Mr. Barnes or her sister had spanked the children. Petitioner presented no evidence that she had confronted both her sister and Mr. Barnes as to whether they were spanking the children and that she had instructed them not to do so, as such action was violative of the Discipline Agreement. Further, there is no evidence that Respondent questioned Petitioner's sister or Mr. Barnes. There is insufficient evidence to find that Petitioner used corporal punishment. However, the circumstances presented causes concern to the extent that Respondent was justified in questioning the suitability of Petitioner to be a foster care parent. At all times material hereto, Mr. Barnes did not live with Petitioner. He lived with Petitioner's grandmother. Petitioner never indicated to Respondent that Mr. Barnes either lived in the foster home or did not live in the foster home. Although he spent considerable time at Petitioner's home, the evidence is insufficient to show that he lived with her. Even if Mr. Barnes was living with Petitioner, Respondent became aware of it in October 1995. Respondent's counselor, who was assigned to N.R., believed that Mr. Barnes was living with Petitioner and informed him that, if he was going to live with Petitioner, she had to perform a background check on him. Respondent's counselor obtained the necessary information from Mr. Barnes to perform the background check. At that time, Respondent was aware that Petitioner and Mr. Barnes were planning to be married. Petitioner received a monthly allowance from Respondent for the care of the minor foster children. Petitioner became unemployed. Petitioner did not report her unemployment to Respondent. However, Respondent's counselor, who was assigned to V.M. and J.M., was aware of Petitioner's unemployment but assumed that Mr. Barnes was Petitioner's husband and that he was supporting the family. However, Petitioner and Mr. Barnes were not married, he was not living in Petitioner's home, and he was not supporting the family. Regardless, Petitioner violated the Substitute Care Agreement and the Bilateral Agreement. Petitioner paid too little attention to V.M. and J.M.'s hygiene and personal appearance. The hygiene was inappropriate to the point that the children's school contacted Respondent. The children frequently appeared to be unkept, and Respondent did not observe the children with any new clothes. Because of her unemployment, Petitioner had insufficient income to adequately support the minor foster children. Because of the marks on V.M.'s leg, because of V.M.'s statement to Respondent that Petitioner inflicted the injury to her leg and had spanked both she and her sister, and because Respondent had determined that Petitioner had violated its rules and regulations, Respondent removed the minor foster children from Respondent's home. Furthermore, Respondent refused to renew Petitioner's foster care license. Petitioner no longer wishes to renew her license.3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that her foster care license should be renewed. Department of Transportation v. J. W. C. Company, 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitatives, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Section 409.175(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: The purpose of this section is to protect the health, safety, and well-being of all children in the state who are cared for by family foster homes, residential child-caring agencies, and child-placing agencies, by providing for the establishment of licensing requirements for such homes and agencies and providing procedures to determine adherence to these requirements. Rule 10M-6, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the minimum standards by which foster parents must be evaluated. Rule 10M-6.012 provides in pertitnent part: Section 409.175, F.S., mandates that the department establish minimum standards, or rules for the types of care defined in the statute. The standards, once promulgated, have the full force and effect of law. The licensing rules specify a level of care below which programs will not be able to operate. Rule 10M-6.024 provides in pertinent part: (4) Responsibilities of the Substitute Care Parents to the Department. * * * (b) The substitute care parents are required to participate with the department in relicensing studies and in ongoing monitoring of their home, and must provide sufficient information for the department to verify compliance with all rules and regulations. * * * (g) The substitute care parents must notify the department regarding changes which affect the life and circumstances of the shelter or foster family. Rule 10M-6.025 provides in pertinent part: Length of Marriage. If married, substitute care parents should have a stabilized, legal marriage of at least one year prior to being licensed. Income. Substitute care parents must have sufficient income to assure their stability and the security of their own family without relying on board payments. The substitute family must have sufficient income to absorb four to six weeks of a foster child's care until a board payment is received. Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proof. Petitioner has failed to meet the minimum standards of Rule 10M-6. In addition, during the course of her licensure, Petitioner violated several provisions of the Substitute Care Agreement and the Bilateral Agreement. Regardless, Petitioner has indicated that she no longer wishes to renew her foster care license.4
Recommendation Based upon 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 renewal of Cathy Taylor's foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November 1996.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner meets the education and experience requirements for licensure as Executive Director or for appointment to the Board of Directors of an adoption agency in Florida as outlined in Rule 10M- 24, F.A.C..
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was the state agency responsible for the licensing of adoption agencies in Florida and for the certification of the director and governing body members for such agencies. Petitioner was the founder and President of the A Bond Of Love Adoption Agency, Inc.. She was not on the Board of Directors. Petitioner has been a licensed attorney at law in Florida for approximately 10.5 years and has specialized in handling the adoption of children for approximately 8 years. For at least 5 of those years, she has served as an intermediary, an individual thoroughly familiar with the law of and problems related to the adoption process and who serves as, in essence, a facilitator for the parties. Petitioner founded A Bond Of Love Adoption Agency, Inc. as a nonprofit corporation in Florida to assist in the adoption process and as President and attorney for the corporation, has developed a pool of personnel at the agency to provide the resources for the adoption process in the best possible manner. In her activity as Intermediary, Petitioner first meets with the birth parents or the adoptive parents, whichever she represents initially, to determine her clients' needs. It is her practice not only to explain the legal issues involved, but also to determine the client's emotional and service needs and to line up the appropriate professional or lay sources that client might need. In the event her client is the birth parent, she works not only with that individual and the father, but also with the birth mother's extended family to alleviate the grieving process that all will feel at some point in the process. All potential issues are identified and she either counsels with the family herself or puts them in contact with the right other source to help. Petitioner's practice differs radically from the normal intermediary practice since she delves much more deeply into non- legal impacts and issues of the adoption process. She has implemented procedures of communication, where appropriate, to insure the feedback of information from both the birth and adoptive parents which alleviates the anxiety of both and facilitates the healing process in the birth parents who have given up their child. It also supports the process of acceptance by the family of the adoptive child and assists in planning for the answer of future questions by the child about the adoption process. In the course of her practice, she has also handled the adoption of handicapped, biracial, and other children who are difficult to adopt and has facilitated resolution of the additional emotional and financial (medical care costs) relevant to that category of child. Her experience in the human services field, as a result of her frequent work arrangements with the Department, enables her to facilitate the resolution of these problems so that the services are provided and the adoption can proceed. Petitioner is recognized as an expert in the field of adoption law and practice, having done over 400 adoptions. She serves on the advisory board for the Department's agency dealing with mixed racial adoptions; she is a volunteer worker with the guardian ad litem program, the alternative abortion program, and the schools of Sarasota County; she is active and has held leadership positions in the adoption subcommittees of both the Florida and American Bar Associations; is a speaker at numerous legal and other relevant organizations; and has widely published in the field. The current Executive Director of A Bond of Love Adoption Agency, Ms. Martin, has over 17 years experience as a social worker in various specialties, including adoptions. Prior to assuming her current position, she worked for 1.5 years with the Children's Home Society, an adoption agency, in St. Petersburg. While there she worked under an executive director whose job was to raise funds, supervise personnel and the expenditure of funds and resources. As Executive Director for A Bond Of Love, Ms. Martin supervises two adoption counselors and serves in that capacity herself. She also works with out of state adoptions and conducts educational seminars for adoptive couples. From time to time, when social workers were not available to do this work and the social assessment so requires, Ms. Stockham has been called upon to do those reports and they have been at the very least equal in quality and substance to those done by the full time social workers. She has done between 3 and 5 assessments during the current year. The service provided by the Petitioner agency is much broader in scope than that provided by Martin's previous agency, the Children's Home Society. The training she got for this extra work came from Ms. Stockham. She has attended seminars in adoption-related subjects in other areas of the country, and the training she has been given by Ms. Stockham is totally consistent with the information given in those sessions, proving to her that Stockham knows here business. The agency has presented a series of 4.5 hour seminars on adoptions considerations over the years. The majority of these, which are much more in depth than those given by the Children's Home Society, were given by Ms. Stockham who also provides the same service to private adoption clients. Ms. Martin feels that Stockham's experience in the adoptive process, not only as an attorney but also as a counselor, is definitely similar to the human services duties a human services worker provides. She is totally satisfied that Ms. Stockham could do a creditable job in the position of Executive Director of the agency. Ms. Johnson also works for the agency, having had 6 years' experience with the Department as an adoption counselor. In that capacity, over the years she worked repeatedly with the Ms. Stockham and is intimately familiar with her work. Stockham has given her numerous verbal assessments. In each of those cases, she dealt delicately and sensitively with both the birth and adoptive parents and the social and legal matters as well. Ms. Stockham is the best she has ever seen in the adoption process and is very innovative. Ms. Johnson has also observed Ms. Stockham working in seminars and support groups which Stockham helped get started. In these seminars, she provides training for both birth and adoptive parents and does extremely well in handling these sensitive situations. Ms. Stockham is the adoptive parent of two biracial parents and Ms. Johnson did the home assessment of Ms. Stockham's home for the second adoption. She found her to be very knowledgeable and sensitive to the needs of biracial adoptions. She has also had numerous opportunities to review assessments done by Ms. Stockham and has found them to be the equivalent of and more in depth than those done by Department social workers. Over the years, all of the the adoption community professionals have benefited from Petitioner Stockham's expertise in the area. There is no question that Ms. Stockham is a highly skilled and dedicated practitioner in the area of adoption law and her expertise and innovativeness have contributed greatly to the success of the adoption process in Sarasota County. Several practitioners and judges have so indicated in commendatory letters to the Department in support of her application, and it is so found. Ms. Stockham also urges that the Department has followed an inconsistent policy toward the approval of attorneys as Executive Directors of adoption agencies in other parts of the state. In support of this position, she has offered the director resumes and licenses for child placement agencies headed by lawyers. It is found that licensure as an attorney at law in this state is not a disqualification for service as an executive director of such an agency. However, licensure as an attorney is not, per se, proof of possession of the educational and experience requirements set down by the Department's rule. Here, the Department, in its letter of denial which prompted Ms. Stockham's request for hearing, accepted her degree in psychology as meeting the "related field" criterion, but denied the application on the basis of her lack of experience in "human service or child welfare programs." Ms. Stockham's testimony and that of Ms. Martin and Ms. Johnson as to the nature of her work with adoptive and birth parents, aliunde the technical and legal requirements of the adoptive process, uncontradicted by Respondent, shows Stockham's experience falls well within the prescribed arena. Even disregarding the first several years of her practice, when she was new to the field, it is clear that for the past four or five years, her experience qualifies as human service or child welfare experience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order approving Petitioner Susan Stockham's application for licensure as Executive Director of the A Bond of Love Adoption Agency, Inc., but denying her application and that of any other paid employee to serve on the agency's Board of Directors. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1993. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan L. Stockhan, Esquire 2520 South Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 34239 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire DHRS, District 8 8695 College Parkway, Suite 217 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Dwight E. Leslie, is entitled to the exemption sought.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing exemption requests for persons disqualified to serve as foster parents. Petitioner was disqualified for licensure as a foster parent based upon his past criminal record. Petitioner does not dispute the accuracy of the Respondent's information regarding his past disqualifying criminal record but has sought an exemption based upon the current state of his life. Prior to moving to Florida, Petitioner had an extensive criminal history due to his involvement in drug-use and possession. Petitioner was charged with and convicted on numerous drug-related offenses in New York and New Jersey. Petitioner has satisfied all requirements of the authorities in those states and made payments for the court costs incurred in the proceedings which were pending. At the time of hearing, Petitioner was off probation for the offenses from New York and New Jersey, and had worked for a drug-free employer, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department, for three years. No evidence suggests Petitioner has engaged in any illegal conduct since his employment in Miami, Florida. Petitioner is married to Rona Leslie, formerly known as Rona Elliott. Mrs. Leslie was a licensed foster parent prior to her marriage to Petitioner. She was licensed as a single foster parent in 1995. There are no reports of any improprieties in the care Mrs. Leslie gave to the foster children placed in her home. Additionally, Mrs. Leslie has worked at the VA hospital for approximately ten years. Petitioner credits his relationship with his wife as the determining factor in his ability to change his former way of life. He maintains that he sought the license for foster parenting because he did not want her to have to give up something she had enjoyed because she married him. Petitioner was straightforward regarding his criminal past at all phases of the licensing process. When he attended orientation, throughout the MAPP class program, and when completing all documents requested by the Department, he fully disclosed his criminal past. In response to questions from the Department which arose from the background check and screening, Petitioner resolved all issues of outstanding costs owed on the criminal cases as well as an outstanding weapons charge which was dismissed. Petitioner acknowledged that while he cannot fight his background, he has done everything within his power to assure his future is different. The Department based its decision to deny the exemption, in part, on Mrs. Leslie's alleged misrepresentation to a case worker regarding Petitioner's presence in the home during her renewal in 1996. The case worker did not testify. Nor did any witness who had been in Petitioner's home. It is undisputed that the Department placed at least one child in the Leslie home after it had notice, actual knowledge, of the Petitioner's past criminal record.
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 approving the exemption sought by this Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Leah M. Pollard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Dwight E. Leslie 4602 Northwest 180th Street Miami, Florida 33055
