The Issue Whether Petitioner Antoinette Scanziani's license as a family foster home should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating family foster homes. Children's Home Society (CHS) is the contract agency in the Central Licensing Zone that directly supervises licenses in that area. Petitioner filed an application to renew her family foster home license on May 26, 2006, which was originally issued for one year in August 2005. Prior to the issuance of her family foster care license on August 19, 2005, Petitioner had completed, inter allia, 30 hours of Models Approach Partnership and Parenting (MAPP) training and signed a Foster Parent Agreement, prepared by CHS, which spells out the duties and obligations of a foster parent. Paragraph 12 of the Agreement specifically states that a foster parent will notify CHS immediately of any change of address. Under Respondent's rules, a family foster care license is not transferable, and a new sanitation inspection and recommendation must be completed before Respondent can issue a new license for the new address. The family foster care license was issued to Petitioner for 5831 Bent Pine Drive, Apartment 300, Orlando, Florida 32822. The first foster child was placed in Petitioner's care on September 1, 2005. In August 2005, Petitioner began a dispute with the rental management company who managed the apartment complex where she lived. This resulted in Petitioner giving the company 60 days' notice that she would not renew her lease after October 31, 2005. The rental company, mean while, would not accept her tender of rental payments for August and September 2005, and initiated eviction proceedings in County Court. Prior to the final hearing, a stipulation was signed by the parties and approved by the County Court. Petitioner moved out of her apartment on October 31, 2005. On November 1, 2005, Petitioner, along with one foster child, moved into a house located at 7741 Fort Sumter Drive, Orlando, Florida 32822. CHS was not notified of this change of address until November 11, 2005. The CHS Dependency Specialist worked diligently with Petitioner to obtain a license for her new residence. DCF issued a new family foster care license for 7741 Fort Sumter Drive, Orlando, Florida 32822 on December 20, 2005. Petitioner maintained an unlicensed foster home from the period of November 1, 2005, through December 20, 2005. Although the foster child residing with Petitioner was not removed from the home, Petitioner was reminded of the need to notify CHS prior to any moves in the future. On April 6, 2006, Petitioner notified CHS that she had moved from her Fort Sumter Drive, Orlando, residence to a residence in Poinciana, Florida (Osceola County) at the end of March 2006. It was subsequently determined that a Writ of Possession for the Orlando residence was issued by the Orange County Court on March 2, 2006. Petitioner testified at the hearing that she moved at the end of March 2006, because of poor maintenance and discriminatory and retaliatory conduct by the landlord. The foster child was not removed from the home and the CHS Dependency Specialist again worked diligently and patiently with Petitioner to obtain a license for her family foster care residence at 127 Conch Drive, Kissimmee, Florida 34759 (Poinciana). Due primarily to Petitioner's lack of cooperation, a completed health inspection of the home was not completed until August 4, 2006. During this time, Petitioner submitted her application for relicensure on May 26, 2006. On July 13, 2006, the CHS Dependency Specialist hand delivered a letter, dated July 11, 2006, to Petitioner reminding her that a face-to-face visit and a walk through of the home was required before recommendation could be given. Petitioner was given a check-list of 16 items which were due to be completed prior to July 16, 2006, or CHS could not recommend renewal of her foster care license. On July 18, 2006, CHS sent Petitioner a follow-up letter. Although another home inspection had taken place on July 17, 2006, it was not a satisfactory home health inspection. In addition, proof of completion of 12 hours of training had not been demonstrated and six other items on the check-list were, also, not completed. The deadline for compliance was extended to August 3, 2006, with a reminder that the existing license expired on August 19, 2006. CHS followed with reminder telephone calls on July 19 and 20, followed by another letter on July 25, 2006, that all remaining items must be completed by August 3, 2006. Petitioner demonstrated compliance with four of the items, but did not provide Radon Test results or proof that her 2A10BC fire extinguisher was tagged and inspected. On August 18, 2006, the foster child, living in Petitioner's home, was removed. On August 19, 2006, Petitioner's family foster care license expired by operation of law, without Petitioner having submitted a completed application package to CHS. On August 28, 2006, Respondent sent Petitioner a notice of intent to deny her application for relicensure. The reasons for the denial were outlined on the four-page letter. Petitioner objected to the notice and requested a formal hearing, and this proceeding followed. From the evidence, it is apparent that CHS worked diligently in helping Petitioner transfer her existing license two times, when Petitioner moved without notifying CHS before the move; and encouraged and worked with Petitioner to complete the application for renewal a month before the expiration of her license. However, due to Petitioner's procrastination and/or resistance, the completed documentation was not sent in to Respondent prior to the expiration of her prior license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner, Antoinette Scanziani's, application for a renewal of her family foster home license be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents' foster home license should be revoked for violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-13.030(3).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for foster care licensing, pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-13. Respondents are a mother, Mary Highsmith, and daughter, Dawndrell Martin, who reside together and obtained a joint license to provide foster care to children on November 16, 2017. On July 16, 2018, the Department’s Florida Abuse Hotline received an abuse report regarding B.H., a five-year-old female, who had been previously removed from her parents due to abuse, abandonment, or neglect and placed in the foster home of Respondents in November of 2017. The abuse report stated that B.H. had bruising on her back, face, and on top of her head. B.H. told the abuse reporter that “TT” had hit her with a brush or comb. “TT” was B.H.’s nickname for Ms. Martin. Daniel Henry, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned to investigate the abuse report. He interviewed B.H., who told him that Ms. Martin had punished her by hitting her with a comb, a switch, and a flip-flop and that Ms. Highsmith had repeatedly “thumped” her forehead with a flick of her finger. Mr. Henry interviewed the reporter of the abuse. He contacted local law enforcement to facilitate a joint investigation, contacted the Department’s licensing staff, and interviewed Respondents. Based on B.H.’s statements, Mr. Henry immediately referred the case to the CPT. The CPT is an independent entity created by statute and overseen by an interagency agreement between the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Health. Among other services, the CPT performs assessments that include medical evaluations, specialized clinical interviews, and forensic interviews. See § 39.303, Fla. Stat. In this case, B.H.’s physical injuries led the CPT to arrange a forensic interview and a medical evaluation of the child. Kimberly Dykes is an ARNP working for the CPT. She has undergone specialized training in child maltreatment, including the nature, origin, manifestations, and symptoms of abuse and injuries inflicted upon minor children. Her training included recognizing the difference between accidental and intentional injuries. Ms. Dykes performed a medical examination and interviewed B.H. about the cause of her injuries. Ms. Dykes concluded that B.H.’s wounds were consistent with inflicted injury, and were consistent with the causation described by the child as “having been repeatedly struck with a comb and a switch and having been repeatedly thumped in the forehead.” Ms. Dykes testified that she spoke with the investigator for the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office, Sergeant Cheree Edwards. Ms. Dykes stated that Sgt. Edwards provided her with the explanations that Respondents had offered for B.H.’s injuries. Ms. Dykes testified that she was able to medically rule out each of these explanations as lacking appropriate medical and testimonial support for their causation. Ms. Dykes further recommended that B.H. be removed from Respondents’ home and placed in alternate custody. Angela Griffin is a specialist with the CPT, who is certified to provide specialized clinical interviews and forensic interviews of minor children. Ms. Griffin conducted a forensic interview of B.H. Ms. Griffin testified as to the safeguards necessary to protect the integrity of the interview process with a child, such as building rapport, discussing the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, and explaining the “rules of the room” to the child, including the fact that the interview will be recorded and that the child should make it known if she does not understand a question. Ms. Griffin stated that she employed all these safeguards during her interview with B.H. During her interview with Ms. Griffin, B.H. described how her injuries were inflicted. This description was consistent with the story B.H. told to the abuse reporter, to Mr. Henry, and to Ms. Dykes.1/ B.H. told Ms. Griffin that Ms. Martin had hit her on the head, in the face, and on the back with a comb, a switch, and a flip-flop, and that Ms. Highsmith had thumped her forehead. Upon concluding the forensic interview and medical evaluation, Ms. Griffin and Ms. Dykes provided recommendations for the care of B.H. They recommended that B.H. be removed immediately from the home of Respondents. They further recommended that any and all other children placed with Respondents be removed, and that no further children be placed with them. They recommended counseling for B.H. After concluding his investigation and consulting with the CPT, Mr. Henry verified the allegations of physical abuse by Ms. Martin. He recommended that Respondents’ foster home license be revoked and that no other children be allowed to reside with them. At the hearing, Sgt. Edwards testified as to the investigation she conducted for the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office. She stated that in cases of joint investigation by the Department and law enforcement, the CPT is critical in allowing a single point of contact with the minor victim. It is in the best interest of the child to avoid multiple and redundant interviews that could cause repeated trauma. Following the joint investigation protocol, Sgt. Edwards did not conduct her own interview of B.H., but observed the recording of Ms. Griffin’s interview with B.H. Sgt. Edwards also reviewed the notes made by Mr. Henry, the Department’s investigator. Sgt. Edwards interviewed Respondents and took repeated statements from them regarding possible origins of the injuries to B.H. She allowed Respondents to provide any and all evidence relevant to this matter. Sgt. Edwards testified that she contacted, or attempted to contact, every witness named by Respondents, including the day care teachers, and reviewed every piece of evidence presented by Respondents. During her investigation, Sgt. Edwards discovered a hair comb at Respondents’ residence. A photograph of the comb taken by law enforcement was presented as an exhibit in this proceeding. The photo shows a long-handled “rattail” comb. Sgt. Edwards determined this comb to match the item described by B.H. as the implement used by Ms. Martin to hit her on the head. Ms. Dykes testified that the comb showed in the photograph could easily have been the cause of the injuries to the top of B.H.’s head. Based on her independent investigation, Sgt. Edwards found probable cause to file criminal charges against Ms. Martin for inflicting injury on B.H. At the time of the hearing, the criminal case was still pending. At the hearing, the Department presented 13 photographs, taken by Ms. Griffin, of B.H.’s injuries. The photos detail multiple sources of trauma and bruising to B.H.’s face, head, back, eyes, neck, and scalp. None of the wounds appeared deep or serious, but did appear to be more severe than the usual bumps and bruises a parent expects from an active child. Ms. Dykes testified that the injuries in the photos were entirely consistent with B.H.’s statements that Ms. Martin caused them by hitting her with a comb, a switch, and a flip- flop. Respondents did not testify. Through cross- examination and argument, Respondents were able to put forward some of their explanations for the injuries to B.H. They contended both that B.H. is inclined to self-harm and that the injuries must have been inflicted at Caverns Learning Center, the day care facility that reported the injuries to the Florida Abuse Hotline. They contended that the child may have hit her head on a dresser while bouncing on her bed. They stated that B.H.’s skin had been rubbed raw by a seat belt. Her scalp injuries may have been caused by a harsh shampoo used to treat for lice, or by self-pulling of her hair, or by undiagnosed folliculitis. Ms. Highsmith theorized that the entire case was fabricated by authorities who did not like the fact that black foster parents were caring for white children. Respondents argued that Mr. Henry did not pursue other theories as to the cause of the injuries. For example, he took employees of Caverns Learning Center at their word when they told him B.H. was injured when she arrived at the day care on the morning of July 16, 2018. They also questioned why approximately two hours passed between B.H.’s arrival at the day care and the call to the Florida Abuse Hotline. Mr. Henry plausibly addressed both issues raised by Respondents. He testified that the Department bases its investigations on the identity of the alleged perpetrator. Because B.H. repeatedly and consistently identified Ms. Martin as the person who inflicted the injuries, Mr. Henry saw no reason to cast about for other suspects. Mr. Henry stated that he did not find it unusual for a busy day care to take a couple of hours to report to the abuse hotline. Respondents did not themselves testify on the advice of their criminal defense attorney. Respondents did present the testimony of their licensing specialist, Kristy Hancock, and a “courtesy” dependency case manager, Precious Ingram.2/ Ms. Hancock testified that she was the instructor for Respondents’ foster home licensing class. Respondents were “very engaged” during the seven weeks of coursework and seemed to understand the implications of being foster parents. Ms. Hancock stated that she had visited Respondents’ home and all seemed well.3/ Ms. Hancock also testified that she was aware of “issues” with Caverns Learning Center, but did not elaborate. Ms. Ingram testified that Respondents were cooperative with her when she made her monthly home visits. She observed nothing that would indicate abuse or neglect. She never saw marks on B.H. resembling those in the photographs introduced by the Department. Ms. Ingram stated that she saw nothing out of the ordinary in Respondents’ foster home and never had cause to raise concerns about the care of the children there. Jeanne Durden is employed by Big Bend Community Based Care (“BBCBC”) and is in charge of BBCBC’s licensing responsibilities. BBCBC is a contractor retained by the Department to provide foster care services in Circuits 2 and 14. BBCBC manages foster care licensing for the cited jurisdictions. Ms. Durden testified that it was her responsibility to provide quality assurance for all foster care licensing operations. BBCBC contracts with other entities to provide front line case management, and Ms. Durden provides oversight for those subcontractors. Ms. Durden testified that she removed all of the minor children from Respondents’ home immediately after reviewing the findings of the child protective investigator and the CPT. Ms. Durden also recommended immediate termination and revocation of Respondents’ foster home license. Ms. Durden explained that her recommendation was due to the nature and findings of the Department’s verified child protection abuse report as well as the criminal charges filed against Ms. Martin. She noted that Department rules do not permit corporal punishment of any kind for foster children, because of the traumas these children have already experienced. Ms. Durden did not believe that anything short of revocation was legally appropriate. She opined that mitigation was not possible based on the nature and cause of B.H.’s injuries. Regina Pleas is safety program manager for the Department’s Northwest Region. Among her duties is management of the Department’s licensing operations. BBCBC has the contractual responsibility to recruit, retain, and manage foster homes, but the Department is ultimately responsible for all decisions and maintains final approval for BBCBC’s licensing actions. Ms. Pleas reviewed Ms. Durden’s recommendation of revocation of Respondent’s foster home license. After considering the nature and cause of the injuries inflicted, the consistency of B.H.’s statements, and the analysis of the CPT, Ms. Pleas concurred that revocation was necessary. In considering the appropriateness of revocation, Ms. Pleas also took into account that Respondents were now subject to a verified abuse report, meaning that the Department could no longer place minor children in their care. Ms. Pleas drafted the letter notifying Respondents of the Department’s decision to revoke their foster home license. The letter, dated September 28, 2018, appropriately notified Respondents of the Department’s intended action and of their due process rights in challenging the Department’s preliminary decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families revoking the foster home license of Respondents Dawndrell Martin and Mary Highsmith. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondents’ renewal foster home license application should be denied based upon allegations that Respondents violated a foster child’s safety plan, refused to sign a corrective action plan, and refused to work in partnership with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties DCF is the state agency responsible for licensing foster care parents and foster homes pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes. DCF administers foster care programs by contracting with third-party private entities. In Circuit 19, which is the geographic area encompassing Port St. Lucie, DCF has contracted with Devereux Community Based Care (“Devereux”) to be the “lead agency” to provide the majority of child services. Devereux, in turn, has subcontracted with Camelot Community Care (“Camelot”), which is licensed as a child placement agency. Respondents, who are husband and wife, are foster care parents in a foster care home licensed by DCF. At all times material hereto, Mr. and Mrs. Arias have fostered children at their home in Port St. Lucie. Respondent, Kathleen Arias (“Mrs. Arias”), does not work outside the foster home. She is a “stay-at-home” foster mom. Over the past 16 years, Mrs. Arias has fostered many children. Mrs. Arias is very loving to the foster children in her care, and she has provided a great benefit to the foster children in her care.2/ Kenneth Strout’s Prior History of Sexually Inappropriate Behaviors Kenneth Strout (“Kenneth”), who recently turned 18 years old, was placed into Respondents’ foster home in 2013. Prior to his placement in Respondents’ home, Kenneth engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviors. As a therapeutic foster child in Respondents’ home, Kenneth received therapeutic services, including therapy, psychiatric services, support, and therapeutic parenting by a trained therapeutic foster parent, Mrs. Arias. Despite receiving therapeutic services, Kenneth continued to engage in inappropriate sexual behaviors while living in Respondents’ home. During the time in which Kenneth lived in the home, he had a history of sexually touching others, exposing himself, and masturbating in close proximity to others. On one particular occasion on September 17, 2014, Kenneth was sitting on the couch watching television, and Mrs. Arias’ sister walked in the room. While she had her back to Kenneth, he dropped his pants, exposed himself to her, and pressed his penis against her buttocks. The Applicable Safety Plan Requirements As a result of this incident, an updated safety plan was developed.3/ The safety plan was signed by Mrs. Arias on October 8, 2014. Mrs. Arias reviewed the safety plan and is aware of the requirements of the safety plan. Specifically, the safety plan requires, in pertinent part: “Client needs to be within eyesight and earshot of a responsible adult, who is aware of and will enforce the safety plan at all times.” The May 28, 2015, Incident at LA Fitness and its Aftermath Against this backdrop, on May 28, 2015, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Mrs. Arias took Kenneth, who was 17 years old at the time, to LA Fitness, a gym facility in Port St. Lucie. Mrs. Arias had a membership at LA Fitness and frequented the facility on a regular basis. Despite Ms. Arias’ knowledge of Kenneth’s inappropriate sexual propensities, Kenneth often accompanied Mrs. Arias to the facility, where he would play basketball on an indoor basketball court, while Mrs. Arias exercised in another area at the facility. During the evening of May 28, 2015, Kenneth had been playing basketball on the indoor basketball court. He left the basketball court and approached Mrs. Arias and told her that he needed to use the bathroom. Mrs. Arias gave Kenneth permission to go to the bathroom. The men’s restroom is located inside the men’s locker room. At this point, Kenneth walked toward the men’s locker room, and entered the men’s locker room through the door leading from a hallway into the men’s locker room. Mrs. Arias did not go into the men’s locker room with Kenneth, nor was Kenneth accompanied by an adult when he entered the men’s locker room. Once Kenneth entered the men’s locker room, he walked to the other end of the locker room to another door, which led to the Jacuzzi area. Kenneth then opened the door from the men’s locker room leading to the Jacuzzi area. At this point, Kenneth observed a female, Concepcion Alvarado, sitting alone in the Jacuzzi. Ms. Alvarado was in her swimsuit. At this point, Ms. Alvarado was relaxing in the Jacuzzi with her eyes closed. After observing Ms. Alvarado for a moment, Kenneth stripped down to his boxer shorts, entered the Jacuzzi, and inappropriately touched Ms. Alvarado on her leg. Upon realizing that somebody touched her leg, Ms. Alvarado opened her eyes, saw Kenneth in front of her, and said to him: “What are you doing, little boy?” “Just get out of my way, or do your own stuff.” Kenneth then touched Ms. Alvarado on her shoulder. At this point, Ms. Alvarado became very angry and said to Kenneth: “Why are you touching me? You’re not supposed to do that.” “Just get out.” Kenneth smiled at Ms. Alvarado as Ms. Alvarado exited the Jacuzzi. Ms. Alvarado then entered the nearby pool. Kenneth followed Ms. Alvarado and jumped in the pool as well. Ms. Alvarado recognized Kenneth because he had engaged in similar inappropriate sexual behavior a week earlier. On the prior occasion, Kenneth and Ms. Alvarado were in the Jacuzzi when Kenneth tried to kiss her and touched her leg. Ms. Alvarado did not report the prior incident. However, Ms. Alvarado reported the May 28, 2015, incident to an LA Fitness employee. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement officers arrived at the facility and arrested Kenneth. Kenneth was taken to a juvenile detention facility where he spent the night. Kenneth was not within eyeshot or earshot of Mrs. Arias or another responsible adult once he entered the men’s locker room on May 28, 2015. Kenneth was not within eyeshot or earshot of Mrs. Arias or another responsible adult when the inappropriate physical contact perpetrated by Kenneth against Ms. Alvarado in the Jacuzzi on May 28, 2015, occurred. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondents violated the October 2014 safety plan by failing to ensure that Kenneth was within earshot and eyeshot of a responsible adult at all times when he was at LA Fitness. Had Kenneth been within eyeshot and earshot of a responsible adult at all times on May 28, 2015, while he was at LA Fitness, the incident in the Jacuzzi with Ms. Alvarado would not have occurred.4/ Notably, given Kenneth’s history of sexually inappropriate behaviors, Mrs. Arias knew that she was taking a risk to the public in bringing Kenneth to LA fitness because it was an environment that could be problematic for him. At hearing, Ms. Linda Green, a licensed clinical social worker formerly employed by Camelot, persuasively and credibly explained the difficulties she and Mrs. Arias faced in their efforts to deal with Kenneth’s sexually inappropriate behaviors. According to Ms. Green, a true bond developed between Mrs. Arias and Kenneth. Kenneth referred to Mrs. Arias as “mom,” and he felt like she was his mother. In an attempt to keep the family unit intact, Ms. Green wanted significant “client-directed therapy” and “advocation because the client should have the right to control their life.” On the other hand, Ms. Green was concerned about keeping society safe from Kenneth. In hindsight, Ms. Green candidly admitted at hearing that Kenneth “probably needed institutionalization sooner.” Mrs. Arias recognized her inability to control Kenneth’s sexually inappropriate behaviors and the danger he posed to society prior to the May 28, 2015, incident. Prior to the May 28, 2015, incident, Mrs. Arias requested that Kenneth be placed on a “30-Day Notice.” Kenneth was on a “30-Day Notice” when the incident at the gym on May 28, 2015, occurred. Nevertheless, Kenneth remained in the Respondents’ home as of the May 28, 2015, incident at the gym because Devereux was having difficulty finding a new placement, and Mrs. Arias agreed to keep Kenneth in the home until after the end of the school year. The school year ended the first week of June. Kenneth never returned to Respondents’ home after the May 28, 2015, incident at LA Fitness. Instead, Kenneth was discharged from the foster care program, and placed in a group facility where he has resided ever since. It is anticipated that Kenneth will remain in the group facility until he is 23 years old. Following the incident at the LA Fitness gym on May 28, 2015, DCF undertook an investigation. As a result of its investigation, DCF concluded that the safety plan was violated because Kenneth was not within earshot or eyeshot of a responsible adult when the incident at the gym on May 28, 2015, occurred. DCF’s investigation resulted in a verified finding of abuse against Respondents based on inadequate supervision. Based on DCF’s verified finding of abuse based on inadequate supervision, a corrective action plan was required by administrative rule and prepared for Respondents to execute. A corrective action plan is a document which identifies issues of concern to DCF and how DCF, as an agency, can work together with the foster parent to improve the foster parent’s performance. A corrective action plan serves as a supportive intervention and is not punitive in nature. Respondents refused to execute the corrective action plan because they were concerned that, in doing so, they would admit DCF’s investigative finding of abuse based on inadequate supervision. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondents refused to execute the corrective action plan. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondents failed to work in partnership with DCF.5/ Respondents’ foster care license was due to expire on October 18, 2015. After the May 28, 2015, incident occurred, DCF placed another child under Respondents’ care. Regardless of the incident at LA Fitness on May 28, 2015, DCF intended to re-license Respondents. DCF intended to renew Respondents’ foster care license after the May 28, 2015, incident despite the verified finding of inadequate supervision. DCF was unable to re-license Respondents because they failed to execute the corrective action plan required by rule. Had Respondents executed the corrective action plan required by DCF, Respondents’ foster care license would have been renewed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department of Children and Families placing Respondents’ foster care license in provisional status for six months, during which time Respondents shall execute the corrective action plan. If Respondents decline to execute the corrective action plan within six months, the provisional license will not be replaced with a regular license or renewed.7/ DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent's foster home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Azulphar had a foster home license issued by the Department. Ms. Azulphar became a foster parent in January 1999. As with all new foster parents, Ms. Azulphar was required to complete 30 hours of Model Approach to Partnership Parenting (MAPP) training. Among other things, the MAPP training involves discussions regarding duties and responsibilities of a foster parent, the sexual problems of foster care children, and what to do if a foster care child runs away. Ms. Azulphar and the Department entered into a Bilateral Service Agreement regarding foster care. Both of them agreed to abide by the terms of the Bilateral Service Agreement. The Bilateral Service Agreement provided, among other things, the following: The Department's responsibilities to the foster parents include: * * * j. Support will be shown by responding within 24 hours to telephone messages, written correspondence or any other requests the foster parents may have. * * * Commitment to the Child The decision to accept a child into the home is a major one. . . Most foster children have experienced severe emotional, sexual and/or physical abuse as well as trauma. It is not unusual for children who have been sexually abused to act out in sexual inappropriate ways. Foster parents must be aware that these children need extra monitoring, teaching and showing of appropriate affection in order to grow into healthy children. . . By accepting a child into the home, the foster parent(s) agree to the following responsibilities: * * * d. To ensure that the child has supervision appropriate to his/her age and developmental level. * * * Foster parents have responsibilities and duties to both the department [sic] and the child. Responsibilities to the department [sic] include: * * * k. To notify the Department immediately if a child runs away, is missing or does not return home, even if the foster parent knows where the child is. * * * s. To know where and with whom the child is staying and the type of supervision the child is receiving when foster parents approve an outing or overnight activity. . . Non-compliance with any of the above provisions can result in termination of this service agreement by either the foster parents or the Department. Non-compliance with any of the above [sic] provisions may also result in the department [sic] revoking the home's license to provide foster care pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. . . . Any person living with a foster parent is subject to a background check by the Department because such person would have contact with any foster child placed with the foster parent. Such person must not have a disqualifying criminal record1 in order for the person to remain in the foster home during the licensure of the foster home. Ms. Azulphar had a tenant, Louis Bryant, who lived in an attached room to her home, which was converted from a garage. He had his own private entrance to his room. In January 2002, the Department informed Ms. Azulphar that Mr. Bryant, not only had a criminal record, but also had a disqualifying criminal drug record and that, therefore, if she wanted to keep her license, he would have to move. Ms. Azulphar informed Mr. Bryant that he had to move. Mr. Bryant moved, and Ms. Azulphar provided documentation to the Department indicating that he had moved. Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as a long-time friend and someone that she had relied upon when she first came to the United States. Mr. Bryant was also Ms. Azulphar's former supervisor. Further, even though he was a drug addict, who was skinny and dirty, smelled bad, and needed reminding to bathe, Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as the only person upon whom she could call when she had an emergency. She also indicated that Mr. Bryant was a handy man who performed repairs for her. Ms. Azulphar admitted that, as to Mr. Bryant, she was a "co-partner." She further admitted that Mr. Bryant was someone she "needs to continue what she was doing." In spite of her reliance upon Mr. Bryant as indicated, Ms. Azulphar showed a willingness to comply with the Department's requirements by requiring Mr. Bryant to move. On or about May 8, 2002, a foster child, F.D.,2 was placed with Ms. Azulphar. F.D. was 12 years of age at the time. F.D. was a special needs foster child because she had a history of being sexually abused at an early age and because F.D.'s father was deceased and her mother had voluntarily surrendered her parental rights. F.D. was the subject of disciplinary action at school. She was suspended for ten days from school for pulling a knife on another student. During the suspension, Ms. Azulphar took F.D. to work with her. F.D. left Ms. Azulphar's workplace without Ms. Azulphar's permission and knowledge. F.D. called her friends who came to Ms. Azulphar's workplace and F.D. left with them. Ms. Azulphar discovered that F.D. was dating a young man who was much older than F.D. Ms. Azulphar believed that the young man was approximately 26 years of age because he "looked" 26 years of age and F.D.'s friends were dating young men who also looked 26 years of age. Ms. Azulphar believed that the young man was among the friends that F.D. contacted to leave Ms. Azulphar's workplace. Also, during F.D.'s suspension, on the afternoon of May 16, 2002, her Guardian Ad-Litem came to Ms. Azulphar's home to visit F.D. The Guardian Ad-Litem knocked but no one answered. F.D. emerged from a neighbor's house. Ms. Azulphar had left F.D. alone at home. Ms. Azulphar had instructed F.D. to wait for the Guardian Ad-Litem at home and to not go outside of the home. Ms. Azulphar talked with the Guardian Ad-Litem on the telephone that same day. She expressed to the Guardian Ad-Litem that she wanted F.D. out of her home. That evening on May 16, 2002, F.D. became so distraught and volatile that she took a knife and threatened to harm herself. Ms. Azulphar called the Department's emergency telephone number and was told to call the Crisis Center for Mobile Children (CCMC). Ms. Azulphar telephoned CCMC, which told her how to talk to F.D. Ms. Azulphar did as she was instructed and F.D. did not harm herself. The next day, May 17, 2002, sometime in the evening after bedtime, which was around 9 p.m., F.D. slipped out of Ms. Azulphar's home. Ms. Azulphar had taken a sleeping pill and was not aware that F.D. was gone. Around 4 a.m. on May 18, 2002, Ms. Azulphar received a telephone call from F.D., who wanted Ms. Azulphar to come and get her. Ms. Azulphar did not want to drive at that time because she had taken the sleeping pill, so Ms. Azulphar asked F.D. to have an adult come to the telephone. Ms. Azulphar believed that F.D. was at a party because of the background noise that she heard, which sounded like a party. Ms. Azulphar recognized that the person who came to the telephone was not an adult, but Ms. Azulphar requested that F.D. be permitted to stay at the person's home until 6 a.m. when she (Ms. Azulphar) would pick-up F.D. F.D. did not wait for Ms. Azulphar. She returned to Ms. Azulphar's home before Ms. Azulphar could get her. Ms. Azulphar did not call the police when she discovered that F.D. was leaving her (Ms. Azulphar's) workplace with the young man who was 26 years of age and when she received the telephone call from F.D. The reason that Ms. Azulplhar did not call the police is that she believed that the police would do more harm than good to F.D., that F.D. had had enough trouble, and that F.D. was a Haitian as she was. After F.D. returned to Ms. Azulphar's home on May 18, 2002, Ms. Azulphar contacted the Guardian Ad-Litem and requested the removal of F.D. from her home. The Guardian Ad-Litem reported the incident to the court and the court ordered an investigation and the removal of F.D. from Ms. Azulphar's home. The Guardian Ad-Litem did not know the results of the court's investigation. During the time that F.D. was in Ms. Azulphar's home, Ms. Azulphar also had, in addition to her own child, T.A., two other foster children, A.A. and her sister, V.A.3 All of the other children agree that F.D. could not be trusted, was a thief, and did not tell the truth. After F.D. was removed from her home, Ms. Azulphar had another foster child placed in her home, who ran away. However, this time, Ms. Azulphar contacted the police and the Department when she discovered that the child had run away. Sometime during the first two weeks that F.D. was placed with Ms. Azulphar,4 the Department's social worker for F.D., Luis Muriel, was making arrangements with Ms. Azulphar to pick-up F.D. Ms. Azulphar requested Mr. Muriel to come to her workplace since F.D. would be there with her; however, he wanted Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone. Ms. Azulphar reminded him that she was not to leave F.D. at home alone. However, Mr. Muriel instructed Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone and informed Ms. Azulphar that he would be arriving at her home in 30 minutes. Ms. Azulphar contacted a male friend, who was approximately 50 years of age, for assistance and requested that he wait at her home for Mr. Muriel, who would be arriving in 30 minutes. However, she instructed her friend to wait outside in his car, not in her home, and he agreed to do so. When Mr. Muriel arrived at Ms. Azulphar's home and knocked on the door, Ms. Azulphar's friend opened the door. Ms. Azulphar's friend had not complied with her instructions and had gone into her home while F.D. was in the home. The Department had not performed a background check on Ms. Azulphar's friend. There was no reason for the Department to perform a background check on Ms. Azulphar's friend since it was never intended by Ms. Azulphar that he would have contact with the foster children placed with her. As to the incident, Ms. Azulphar had made it clear to her friend that he was not to go inside the home. On May 29, 2002, around 8 p.m., the licensing counselor for Ms. Azulphar's case, Reynaldo Gonzalez, made an unannounced visit to her home after being contacted by F.D.'s Guardian Ad-Litem regarding F.D.'s situation. By that time, F.D. had been removed from Ms. Azulphar's home. Mr. Gonzalez noticed a car parked outside of the house. He knocked on the door. The foster child A.A., who was approximately 15 years of age at the time, looked through the window and informed Mr. Gonzalez that Ms. Azulphar was not at home. Mr. Gonzalez returned around 8:30 p.m. and A.A. was still at home alone. Ms. Azulphar had left A.A. at home alone. However, Mr. Gonzalez's primary concern was not A.A.'s being at home alone. On the following day, around 6:20,5 Mr. Gonzalez returned to Ms. Azulphar's home because the Department had received anonymous information that no food was in the home. The same car was parked outside Ms. Azulphar's home, but the front of the car was parked in a different direction. Ms. Azulphar was not at home, but a relative, who was there, permitted Mr. Gonzalez to enter. Mr. Gonzalez found that there was adequate food in the home. None of the foster children were at home; they were with Ms. Azulphar. Mr. Gonzalez's testimony failed to indicate whether the car was parked along the street or in the driveway. An inference is drawn that the car was parked along the street. Ms. Azulphar voluntarily admitted to Mr. Gonzalez that Mr. Bryant was the owner of the car. She wanted Mr. Bryant to park his car outside her home to make it look as if someone were at home because her home had been burglarized when no one was at home. Further, on one of the days referred to, Mr. Bryant's car was either in disrepair or out of gas.6 According to the Department, Mr. Bryant should not have parked his car in front of Ms. Azulphar's home on the street. However, the evidence fails to demonstrate that such conduct by Mr. Bryant involved contact with the foster children. Ms. Azulphar admits that, at times, Mr. Bryant accompanied her shopping even when the foster children were with her. Ms. Azulphar also admits that Mr. Bryant has cut her grass, but only when she was at home. Ms. Azulphar testified that she obtained the approval of the Department for cutting the grass even though no Department witness recalled approving the action. Ms. Azulphar's testimony is found to be credible. Ms. Azulphar used poor judgment as it relates to Mr. Bryant. At first, Ms. Azulphar believed that, even though Mr. Bryant could not continue to be a tenant, she could continue to have Mr. Bryant to assist her with some things. She now knows that, as long as she has foster children, the Department does not want him to be around the children at any time. Ms. Azulphar believed that nothing was wrong with Mr. Bryant parking or leaving his car at her house. Now, she knows that the Department does not want him to be near her home when she has foster children. A.A. and V.A. were removed from Ms. Azulphar's home when the Department decided to revoke her foster home license. Both A.A. and V.A. want to return to Ms. Azulphar's home. Ms. Azulphar's daughter is in complete agreement with her mother being a foster parent and wants A.A. and V.A. to return.
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 dismissing the revocation action of the foster home license of Marie Claire Azulphar. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2003, 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 30th day of April, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' foster home license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioners were licensed to operate a family foster home. Their most current license was effective through April 7, 2004. Petitioners have served as foster parents for about five years. There has been no report of child neglect or child abuse in their foster home prior to the time period relevant here. A. H. is a 10-year-old male. At all times relevant here, A. H. was in the fourth grade. Sometime prior to October 3, 2003, Respondent removed A. H. from his mother's custody and placed him in an initial foster home. A. H.'s first foster home shall be referred to hereinafter as the Gs' foster home. Thomas Munkittrick worked for Respondent as a family service counselor. A.H. was one of Mr. Munkittrick's clients. A. H. had separate visitations with his mother and father on October 6, 2003. Mr. Munkittrick supervised both visits. During a visit to the Gs' foster home on October 14, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick noticed a rash on A. H.'s stomach. The rash appeared to be a ringworm. Mr. Munkittrick did not observe any bruises on A. H.'s arms. On or about October 15, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick spoke to Petitioners to determine whether they would accept A. H. in their home as a foster child. For reasons that are not clear, Respondent changed A. H.'s placement to Petitioners' foster home that same day. On October 16, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick took A. H. to see a medical doctor at Express Care of Belleview. Mr. Munkittrick and A. H.'s mother were present for the medical examination, during which A. H. removed his shirt. Mr. Munkittrick did not observe any bruises on A. H.'s arms. A. H.'s medical record dated October 16, 2003, indicates A. H. had a scratch/bruise on his nose, a ringworm on his stomach, and a rash on his wrist. According to the doctor's notes, A. H. reported that he accidentally injured his nose while playing football with Petitioners' dogs. The doctor's notes do not refer to any bruises on A. H.'s arms. On October 23, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick visited A. H. in Petitioners' home. Mr. Munkittrick saw no visible marks or bruises on A. H. Instead, Mr. Munkittrick observed what he believed was dirt on A. H.'s arms. Mr. Munkittrick also observed that A. H. was slightly flushed from playing outside with Petitioners' dogs, two large Doberman Pinchers. During a visit to Petitioners' home on October 30, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick observed multiple bruises on both of A. H.'s wrists and arms. The bruises were round and as large as quarters. There were no scratch or bite marks on A. H.'s arms. Prior to October 30, 2003, Petitioners had not advised Respondent about the bruises on A. H.'s arms. During the October 30, 2003, home visit, Petitioner R. B., the foster mother, indicated that she had never seen the bruises on A. H.'s arms before Mr. Munkittrick pointed them out. She relied on A. H. to explain how he was injured. During the hearing, Petitioner R. B. admitted that she saw blue/purple bruises on A. H.'s arms for the first time two or three days after his medical examination on October 16, 2003. Despite the inconsistency of Petitioner R. B.'s statements, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner R. B. had no first-hand knowledge as to the cause of the bruises. Her testimony that she did not cause the bruises on A. H.'s arms is credible. On October 31, 2003, Mr. Munkittrick went to A. H.'s school to photograph the bruises on his arms. He then took A. H. for an examination by Respondent's child protection team. The examination included an evaluation of the bruises by an advanced registered nurse practitioner. The nurse was qualified by training and experience to assess pediatric injuries resulting from physical and sexual child abuse. The nurse was unable to reach a conclusion as to the exact source of the bruises. She could not rule out that they were self-inflicted. However, the nurse's testimony provides competent evidence that the bruises on A. H.'s arms were consistent with being grabbed by another person and that they were inconsistent with injuries resulting from roughhousing with dogs. Bruises heal in stages identified by colors beginning with red and ending with brown before they disappear. The colors of bruises in order of healing are red, blue, purple, green, yellow, and brown. In general, a bruise is: (a) red within one to two days of infliction; (b) blue within one to four days of infliction; and (c) yellow/green from the fifth or sixth day up to the tenth day after infliction. A. H.'s bruises ranged in color from red to yellow/green to yellow. The yellow and yellow/green bruises were located on both of A. H.'s upper extremities. He had two forearm bruises with a red component. It is highly unlikely that A. H. received the bruises prior to October 6, 2003. It is more likely that the injuries causing the bruises were inflicted approximately one to two weeks prior to October 31, 2003, i.e., between October 18, 2003, and October 31, 2003. A. H. was living in Petitioners' home and attending public school during this period. On the evening of October 31, 2003, Respondent's staff decided to move A. H. to a third foster home. Respondent's child protective investigator took A. H. back to Petitioners' home to pick up his clothes and belongings. Petitioner R. B. became excited and increasingly emotional when she learned that Respondent was changing A. H.'s placement to another foster home. Petitioner R. B. began yelling, in A. H.'s presence, that he was a liar and a "schizo" just like his "schizophrenic mother." The child protective investigator had to ask A. H. to leave the room when Petitioner R. B. began calling him and his mother names. Petitioner R. B.'s behavior on the evening of October 31, 2003, was inappropriate. However, the deputy sheriff, who was assisting with the change in placement, did not make any arrests. On the evening of October 31, 2003, and during the hearing, Petitioner J. B., the foster father, admitted that he had seen the bruises on A. H.'s arms sometime during the week before October 31, 2003. On both occasions, Petitioner J. B. stated that A. H. was crazy. Petitioner J. B. had no first-hand knowledge as to the cause of the bruises. During the hearing, Petitioner J. B. provided credible testimony that neither he nor his dogs caused the injuries. In order to operate a foster home, foster parents must undergo training on an annual basis. The training includes knowing when to advise Respondent about injuries to their foster children. The requirement to report injuries is a part of the annual service agreement signed by Respondent's staff and foster parents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order revoking Petitioners' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 12th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: J. B. (Address of Record) R. B. (Address of record) Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the foster care license of Joey and Donna Tolbert.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the home of Joey and Donna Tolbert was licensed by the Department as a foster home. They were initially licensed provisionally in December of 1998 for one year. They received a regular license in 1999 and retained a regular license until December 1, 2000, when they were issued license number 1200-008-2, a child specific license with a capacity of two children. The Relicensure Process Prior to issuing the child specific license, two Department employees of the Department, Mary Martin, a relicensing counselor for foster homes, and Ann Brock, a family services counselor, conducted a relicensing visit to the Tolbert's home on October 12, 2000. Donna Tolbert was present but Joey Tolbert was out of town. During the home visit, a Bilateral Service Agreement (Agreement) was signed by Mrs. Tolbert and Ms. Martin. The Agreement was signed and dated by Mr. Tolbert and again by Ms. Martin on October 17, 2000. The relicensing visit resulted in a Foster Home Relicensing Summary written by Mary Martin. The Summary recommended that the Tolberts be issued a regular license effective December 1, 2000 through December 1, 2001, for the capacity of two children. The Summary was signed by Mary Martin on October 26, 2000, and read in pertinent part as follows: The Tolbert family is an invaluable asset to this Department. They have made themselves available on a regular basis for the placement of children when needed. Both Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert are experienced in childcare and they have three (3) children with special needs whom they adopted prior. They should not be asked to take numerous children with severe behavioral problems or teenagers. It appears Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert have satisfied the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 65C-15, requirements. It is respectfully recommended that the Tolbert family be issued a REGULAR license, effective December 1, 2000, through December 1, 2001, for the a capacity of two (2) children, ages birth (0) through twelve (12) years of either gender. Children with severe behavioral problems and teenagers are not to be placed in the Tolbert home. However, Ms. Martin later wrote an addendum to the licensing summary. According to Ms. Martin, she was asked by her supervisor, Jill Green, to write the addendum. The addendum is undated but references the October 12, 2000, home relicensing visit that resulted in her original recommendation. There is also an entry dated October 16, 2000, which is a date prior in time to her signature to the original relicensure summary, and an entry dated November 17, 2000. The addendum relates to matters concerning the Tolberts and their adopted son, Mi.1/ Richard Messerly has worked for the Department for approximately 22 years and works in protective investigations in Pensacola. From June 1999 through September 2001, he was the program operations administrator for the central licensing unit of the Department. In that position, he had authority over foster care licensure. He supervised Mary Martin and her supervisor, Jill Green. Mr. Messerly signed Ms. Martin's relicensure summary on December 4, 2000, and initialed both pages of her addendum. He also created a written history of the Tolbert foster home which concluded with a recommendation that the Tolberts' foster home license be revoked: SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS The Tolbert family has a positive licensing history of capably caring for many of our foster children. However, a serious change has occurred in the family's willingness to work with our staff, including rebuffing our attempts to offer them assistance with the disruption of an adoptive placement. The Tolberts have attempted to convince others that they had been requesting assistance for M for a very long period of time and that this is flatly not borne out in licensing records. The matter was never brought to our attention until the visit in October 2000, at which time the matter was promptly referred to the adoptions unit, who responded promptly. Since that time the family has not cooperated with any attempts to assist them in that matter, and they seem to be insensitive to M's plight, and are completely focused on regaining their prior licensed status, as if nothing had happened. Contacts with Pat Franklin, Kathi Guy, Sally Townsend and others reflect the absence of any prompt attempts to get help dealing with M's behaviors, yet many requests were made regarding foster children in their care with similar problems during the same time frame. It appears the family was more focused on attending the needs of foster children to the exclusion of sensitivity to their own (adopted) child's cries for help. Even when the needs were identified, the family was unwilling to become involved in attempts to remedy the problems and appeared to have given up on the child. I am very uncomfortable with the inappropriate position this family has taken in regard to our family safety staff, as well as licensing staff, and do not see how we can hope to interact positively with them given their recent radical behaviors and threats. I feel that they have violated the Bilateral Service Agreement and have failed to "Treat all members of the foster care team with respect and courtesy." I recommend that we revoke the license using the violation of the agreement in conjunction with their other oppositional behaviors, omissions, and misrepresentations reflected in family safety foster care and adoptions records. On December 1, 2000, Mr. Messerly signed a letter on behalf of Charles Bates addressed to the Tolberts which read: Dear Mr. And Mrs. Tolbert: Your home has been relicensed for the continuance placement of D and M.R. only. No other placements or overcapacity requests will be authorized at this time. A regular license is issued for twelve months pending the outcome of matters presently before the Circuit Court. If you have questions or wish to discuss this further, please contact Jill Greene, Foster Care Licensing Supervisor at (850)- 595-8451. On June 4, 2001, Mrs. Tolbert met with Charles Bates, District Administrator for District 1 of the Department. This meeting was at Mrs. Tolbert's request regarding her foster care licensure status. During that meeting, Mrs. Tolbert complained to Mr. Bates about certain adoption case workers. On August 24, 2001, Charles Bates sent a letter to the Tolberts notifying them of the revocation of their license. The letter reads in pertinent part as follows: RE: Revocation of Foster Home License. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tolbert: This letter is to inform you that the Department of Children and Families has made a decision to revoke your foster home license. The basis for this decision is your failure to comply with Florida Administrative Code 65C-13 and the Bilateral Service Agreement (form CF-FSP 5226) which you executed. Florida Administrative Code 65C-13.009(1)(e)5. states: Work in a partnership. Develop partnerships with children and youth, birth families, the department, and the community to develop and carry out plans for permanency. Florida Administrative Code 65C-13.010(1)(c)1. states: Substitute care parents are expected to work cooperatively with the counselor as a member of a treatment team in seeking counseling, participating in consultation, and preparing and implementing the performance agreement or permanent placement plan for each child. Florida Administrative Code 65C-13.010(4)(i) states: The substitute care parents must be able to accept supervision by department staff and participate in and support case plans for children in their homes. Specifically, substitute care parents must be included in the development of performance agreements or permanent placement plans, and in the carrying out of these plans. As part of your foster care licensing, you executed a bilateral Service Agreement. The Bilateral Service Agreement that you signed enumerated the Administrative Code responsibilities and detailed responsibilities of foster parents. The paragraphs violated are listed below in pertinent part: h. To notify the department immediately of a potential change in a family composition, significant health changes or any other condition that may affect the child's well- being. Obtain authorization from the department prior to spending money for which repayment is expected. To accept the direction and supervision given by department to assist in caring for the foster child. To work cooperatively with the department to attend scheduled meetings to discuss the child and his family and to meet the needs of the child. To treat all members of the foster care team (i.e., the department, child's family, and GALS) with respect and courtesy. As stated in the service agreement, non-compliance with any of the above provisions can result in termination of the service agreement and may also result in the department revoking the home's license. You have failed to comply with the above code citations and service agreement provisions in that you have accused departmental staff of failing to disclose complete information to you and of misrepresenting statements that you have made. You have not worked cooperatively with the department employees who offered to assist you and your child; and have not worked in partnership with the department. Specifically, you have previously stated you were obtaining therapy for a child, didn't agree with the therapist's recommendation, and were obtaining a psychiatric evaluation and assessment for the child, when in fact you did not do any of those things. A review of the department records reflected concerns you mentioned to the department in October 2000, regarding your child's disruptive behavior. However you would accept no assistance even though the department offered extensive assistance. You surrendered your adopted child later that same month. Further, you have stated to a department employee that Ms. Peggy Custred and Ms. Sally Townsend should not work for the department, have accused them of wrongdoing, and have stated that you "will have their jobs." You have failed to treat members of the department with respect and courtesy. Given the above problems, I find that it would not be in the children's best interests to continue licensing your foster home and am permanently revoking your license. The Tolberts as foster parents The overwhelming evidence shows that the Tolberts were excellent foster parents. Jane Crittenden, licensing supervisor for the Department, who was a foster care supervisor at the times material to this proceeding, acknowledged that the Tolberts received the award of Foster Parents of the Year in May of 2000 for the year 1999. She also acknowledged that as far as she knew, the Tolberts excelled as far as their work as foster parents; the foster children in their care did quite well; the Tolberts always seemed to provide a loving, nurturing home to foster children placed there; the Tolberts were called on by the Department to take extra children beyond their cap, which they agreed to do; and the Tolberts cooperated with her and her case workers during the period of time she worked with them. Arlene Johnson, a former guardian ad litem for a foster child in the Tolberts' home from December 1998 until July 1999, visited the Tolbert home about twice a week during that time. She has been in a lot of foster homes and described the Tolberts' home as "the best one I've been in." Gerald Reese, a family service counselor for the Department, worked with the Tolberts over a period of 6 to 7 months in 1999 and 2000 while he was a case worker. During that time, Mr. Reese did not have problems dealing with the Tolberts, did not observe any instance in which the children were not adequately provided for, and observed that the foster children in the Tolberts' home were happy. Richard Messerly acknowledged that the Tolberts were exemplary foster parents as far as the care they provided to the foster children in their care. Mr. Messerly also acknowledged that the only staff the Tolberts had problems with were particular members of the adoption staff, not the Department's foster care staff. The wallpaper expense Carlita Bennett was employed by the Department from 1986 until March of 2002. When she was working for the Department in the capacity of a foster parent recruiter in May of 2001, she sent an e-mail message to Mary Martin regarding the Tolberts which contained the following: 11/04/99 A restitution claim form was submitted by Mrs. T for damage to wallpaper caused by 2 yr. Old. The bill total was $1,151.04 to replace wallpaper in living room, dining room, kitchen and hall. PS Counselors were not made aware of the damage until repairs were made. According to Ms. Bennett, it is regular procedure for someone from the department to go out to a foster home and look at damage before repairs are made. The Bilateral Services Agreement requires the foster parents to obtain authorization from the Department prior to spending money for which repayment is expected. According to Ms. Bennett, this policy was not followed in this instance. Ms. Bennett did not explain why she sent the e-mail message on May 30, 2001, to Mary Martin referencing an incident that took place two and one-half years earlier. According to Mrs. Tolbert, a former two-year-old foster child in her care ripped the wallpaper in the dining room and the living room. Her dining room, kitchen, and hallway are all one color. According to Mrs. Tolbert, she gave an estimate of the repair work to Shiela Campbell, an employee of the Department. Richard Messerly acknowledged that this matter of the expense for wallpaper would not in and of itself have resulted in the Department revoking the Tolberts' foster care license. At most, the Department would have only talked to the Tolberts had there not been other issues about which the Department was concerned. Notification to Department of change of condition The August 24, 2001, revocation letter from Mr. Bates alleged that the Tolberts failed to notify the Department of a potential change in conditions in the home that might affect the well-being of foster care children in the home. This allegation relates to behavior problems of the Tolberts' adopted son, Mi. The Tolberts adopted Mi. in September of 1998. They signed surrenders of Mi. in November of 2000. The Tolberts' surrender of Mi. was central to the Department's decision to revoke the Tolbert's foster care license.2/ Mi. began having serious behavior problems in 1999. Mrs. Tolbert recalls telling Gerald Reese, the foster care worker assigned to the Tolberts at that time, about problems with Mi. Mr. Reese acknowledged that Mrs. Tolbert mentioned to him problems she was having with Mi. to which he responded that she should bring it to the attention of the adoption case worker. The Tolberts' adoption case worker was Sally Townsend. Mrs. Townsend recalls that Mrs. Tolbert stopped by her office three times when Mrs. Tolbert was in the Ft. Walton Beach Service Center to see other department employees. Mrs. Townsend acknowledged that Mrs. Tolbert told her of behavior problems with Mi. the first time she stopped by Mrs. Townsend's office. The second time Mrs. Townsend recalls that Mrs. Tolbert told her Mi.'s behavior problems were better. The third time, however, Mrs. Tolbert informed Mrs. Townsend that Mi.'s behavior was much worse. Mrs. Tolbert remembers these encounters with Mrs. Townsend differently. According to Mrs. Tolbert, she met with Mrs. Townsend approximately 10 times during which she spoke to her about Mi.'s behavior problems. According to Mrs. Townsend's case notes, Mrs. Tolbert told her on October 24, 2000, that Mi. was urinating all over the house, had gotten a butcher knife out of a drawer in the kitchen, and shoved a puppy's head under a piece of furniture. Evidence was presented at hearing regarding whether or when the Tolberts received notice that Mi. had significant problems before he was adopted by the Tolberts. However, what is important for purposes of this proceeding is when was the Department notified of Mi.'s problems. The Department knew of Mi.'s previous problems prior in time to the Tolberts adopting Mi. and were told as early as 1999 that the Tolberts were experiencing behavior problems with Mi. Kathi Guy is an adoption program specialist for the department. She met with the Tolberts immediately after Mrs. Tolbert met with Mr. Bates on June 4, 2001. On June 21, 2001, she wrote a memorandum to Charles Bates concerning the issues relating to the Tolberts. Regarding the issue of the Tolberts' responsibility of notifying the Department of Mi.'s behavior in relation to the foster children in the home, Ms. Guy wrote, "It is unclear what responsibility the Tolberts had to inform Central Licensing of M's behaviors that may have had injurious effects on foster children in their care." Working in partnership The June 24, 2001, revocation letter alleges that the Tolberts failed to work in partnership with the Department and did not obtain certain services for Mi. although they were offered. It is important to remember that the provisions to which Mr. Bates' revocation letter references are part of the Bilateral Services Agreement that pertained to the Tolberts' role as foster parents. However, Mi. was their adopted son, he was not a foster child at that time. Further, there is ample evidence in the record that the Tolberts sought and received services for Mi. over time, although they were in disagreement with the Department regarding certain services during the time immediately preceding the surrender of Mi. Marianne Vance is a first grade teacher. Mi. was in her class for two years. According to Ms. Vance, Mi. received testing in school for learning disabilities and for "everything possible." When Mi.'s behavior problems became worse during his second year in Ms. Vance's class, Mrs. Tolbert sought assistance from the school. The school counselor worked with Mi. and Mrs. Tolbert. According to Ms. Vance, the Tolberts did everything possible in seeking help or assistance.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order rescinding its revocation of the Tolberts' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2002.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1980, the home of Jacob and Donna Vermeulen was licensed by Petitioner as a pre-school foster home. Under that licensure, the Vermeulens were able to care for children from birth to four years of age. The subject of this proceeding, hereinafter referred to as S.L., was born on May 26, 1976. When S.L. was four years old he and his younger sister were removed from the custody of his natural mother (after he witnessed the homicide by bludgeoning of his father by his mother) because S.L. and his sister had been physically abused by both natural parents. Petitioner placed S.L. and his sister into the Vermeu1en foster home. After S.L. and his sister had been living with the Vermeulens for approximately six months, Petitioner removed them from the Vermeulen home and returned them to the custody of their natural mother. After approximately six months, the two children were again removed from their natural mother since she again physically abused them. Petitioner requested the Vermeulens to again take custody of S.L. and his sister. The Vermeulens were reluctant to do so since both S.L, and his sister were now older than was allowed under the Vermeulens' license, and because S.L. had problems relating with the other foster children living in that home during his first stay there. However, Petitioner's social workers begged the Vermeulens to take the children back since Petitioner was unable to find any other placement for S.L. The Vermeulens agreed to make their home available to S.L. and his sister, and the two children thereafter lived in the Vermeulen home for approximately two and one-half years prior to April 16, 1984. S.L. is a difficult child to care for; he is very emotional, developmentally immature, fearful, and fidgety. He has difficulty sleeping or listening, has a very low self-esteem, and is unable to complete tasks since he becomes emotionally frustrated. Not only is S.L. a clumsy child (most probably due to medication), he also throws himself onto the floor and onto his toys, both as part of his aggressive play behavior and also in conjunction with throwing temper tantrums. S.L. initiates fights in school, on the school bus and at home with the other children in the Vermeulen home to such an extent that fighting somewhere would have been almost a daily occurrence. His excessive demands for attention were often accompanied by negative behavior, such as hitting other children and throwing temper tantrums. On December 21, 1983, S.L. was evaluated by psychiatrist Josephine Perez. Perez diagnosed S.L. as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity. Perez determined that the high dosages of anti-psychoic medication that S.L. had been taking were inappropriate, and she prescribed different medication for him. Perez recalls that during S.L.'s initial evaluation in December she noticed that his legs and arms were filled with bruises. S.L. began treating weekly with Perez from January 16, 1984, until April 16, 1984. On each visit at least one of the Vermeulens was present, and each visit contained a seasion between Perez and the foster parent discussing the child's progress and training the foster parent in the use of behavioral modification techniques. During those several months S.L. appeared at Perez's office on one occasion with a black eye and on another occasion with a bruising above his eye. One injury resulted from a fall in the bath tub, and another resulted from a fall out of bed; both falls were probably attributable to changes Perez made in S.L.'s medication. The Vermeulens discussed both incidents with Perez since they were concerned that S.L,'s medication was still not in the proper dosage. The Vermeulens testified that sometimes when S.L.'s medication was changed, he was unable to control even his arms and was unable to sit still long enough to eat. In January, 1984, when S.L. began treating with Dr. Perez there were six children living in the Vermeulen home: four foster children, one adopted child, and one natural child. The Vermeulens and Dr. Perez discussed the number of children living in the Vermeulen home, which prohibited giving S.L. the excessive amount of time required by him to satisfy his need for attention. Perez told the Vermeulens that in her professional opinion S.L. should be in a home with no more than one other child. In turn, the Vermeulens told Perez that they had been requesting Petitioner to remove S.L. from their home out of their concern (1) for S.L. since he needed so much more attention than was available to him and (2) for the other children not only because S.L. would kick and hit them but also because the Vermeulens had discovered S.L. in his sister's bedroom standing over her with a knife in his hand on two occasions. Although Perez agreed that S.L. should be placed a different foster setting, she did nothing to assist in obtaining a different placement and did not discuss with any employee of the Petitioner ("HRS") her recommendation and the Vermeulens' desire that S.L. be placed in a setting, preferably, where he was the only child. The Vermeulens, however, continued to request of HRS employees, including the visiting social workers and medical personnel, that S.L. be removed from their home, with visitation rights being given to the Vermeulens if possible. During this time period the Vermeulens determined that they wished to adopt Michelle, a foster child in their care. On Friday, April 13, 1984, an HRS employee went to the Vermeulen home to discuss that petition for adoption and to advise the Vermeulens that HRS would not allow them to adopt Michelle. Mr. and Mrs. Vermeulen S.L., and the rest of the children living in the home were present during that discussion. The Vermeulens were advised that they would not be permitted to adopt Michelle so long as S.L. was living in their home since he is a "therapeutic foster child" and Petitioner's rules would prohibit the adoption while a "therapeutic child" was in the home. Mrs. Vermeulen was unable to understand Petitioner's position: its refusal to remove S.L. from her home after repeated requests and its refusal to allow her to adopt Michelle for the reason that S.L. was in her home. Mrs. Vermeulen became upset, and S.L. told her and Petitioner's employee to put him in a foster home indicating he would rather be sent away than prevent Michelle from being adopted by the Vermeulens. Since the HRS employee was having a difficult time discussing HRS's position, she left the Vermeulen home. On Friday, April 13, 1984, or on Monday, April 16, 1984, S.L. became involved in a fight on the school bus on the way home from school. The bus driver told Mrs. Vermeulen about the fight. On Monday April 16, 1984, Mrs. Vermeulen took S.L. to his weekly therapy session with Dr. Perez. During that session, S.L. indicated to Perez that he had been bad and had been "paddled" on the legs. He would give her no details, but Perez believed it was Donna Vermeulen who paddled S.L. Rather than discuss it with Mrs. Vermeulen, Perez acted as though nothing had been said. Further, although a medical doctor, she did not examine S.L. Instead, Perez discussed with Mrs. Vermeulen behavioral modification techniques to be utilized with S.L. and sent them home. She then telephoned HRS, and a child abuse report was completed. On April 18, 1984, an HRS employee went to S.L.'s school, removed the child from his class, and took the child to be examined by the Child Protection Team. S.L. was first examined by the nurse. When S.L. was unable to explain to the nurse from where each mark on his body originated (or refused to), she interrogated him with questions such as "Did your mommy hit you?" The nurse made notations on a chart indicating numerous marks or bruises on S.L.'s body. However, an HRS employee saw S.L. disrobed when he was being examined by the doctor on the team and saw only two marks on his lower back. Other HRS employees went to the Vermeulen home and removed all the children. No one discussed the incident or accusation with either Mr. or Mrs. Vermeulen until the following day. Until he was removed from her class on April 18, 1984, S.L. was taught by Debbie Froug an Exceptional Education teacher for emotionally disturbed children. Although Froug describes S.L. as a basically honest child, she testified that he sometimes gets very confused. A careful review of the videotaped testimony of S.L. and of the conflicting testimony of the witnesses in this case indicates that Froug's latter description is probably an understatement. No witness in this case heard the same explanation (or accusation) as any other witness. S.L's videotaped testimony illustrates why: there is no statement made by S.L. that is not contradicted by him a few seconds later. For example the videotaped deposition contains on page 27 the following: O. Did you ever have a black eye? A. No. O. Didn't you talk to Dr. Perez about having a black eye once? A. Yes, but I didn't. How did you get the black eye? One of the kids on the bus. Things stated in the affirmative by S.L. in his deposition are also stated in the negative in that same deposition. Further, it is sometimes impossible to ascertain if S.L. is describing being hit by his real father, by his real mother, or by his foster mother. Although no accusation appears to ever have been made, including in the Administrative Complaint, that Jacob Vermeulen ever struck S.L., by the time of S.L.'s deposition eight months after the alleged incident when S.L. was asked if Jacob ever hit him, that question was answered in the affirmative. In short, the evidence is clear that S.L. had some bruises or marks on his body on April 18, 1984; that those bruises or marks were both received accidentally and intentionally inflicted, and that the bruises or marks on S.L.'s body were received as a result of S.L. falling from being uncoordinated or overmedicated, from S.L. flinging himself onto the floor or onto or against objects, and from being hit or kicked by other children with whom S.L. engaged in almost-daily physical combat. Donna and Jacob Vermeulen used only approved behavior modification techniques with S.L. and did not hit S.L. with or without any object, spank S.L., or otherwise inflict physical abuse upon him. Although the Vermeulens' license as a foster home was in effect at all times material hereto, it has lapsed. A foster home license is not automatically renewed but rather requires an annual licensing study. Other than "the incident" charged herein the Vermeulens have received no prior complaints from HRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is REC0MENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Administrative Complaint filed herein and directing that any licensure study performed regarding the renewal or extension of Respondents' license be made omitting therefrom consideration of any of the matters set forth herein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July,1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 1070 Miami, Florida 33128 Thomas J. Walsh, Esquire 590 English Avenue Homestead, Florida 33030 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondents should be granted a family foster home license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Alfonso and Lynda Zapata, applied to be licensed as a family foster home care with the Department through the Devereux Foundation. The Devereux Foundation maintains a network of foster homes to serve parents who need to temporarily place their children in foster care (private placements) and dependent children in the custody of the Department (public placements). Previously, Petitioners had been licensed as a family foster care home with the Department through Florida Baptist Children's Home (Florida Baptist). Like the Devereux Foundation, Florida Baptist maintains a network of foster homes to serve parents who need to temporarily place their children in foster care and dependent children in the custody of the Department. Petitioners had withdrawn form the relationship with Florida Baptist after a disagreement with Florida Baptist personnel over the removal of a child from their home and reunification of that child with her mother. In 2001, about half of the children placed in Florida Baptist's homes were placed by the Department in connection with cases of child abuse, or abandonment, while the other half were private placements by families whose circumstances necessitated that their children temporarily reside elsewhere. In July 2001, Petitioners had two foster children living in their home. One of these children, T.D., also known as J., had been placed in the Petitioner's home by the Department. The other, C.R., a three-month-old boy, had been privately placed in the home by Florida Baptist at the request of the child's mother, E.R., who was single. E.R. had placed her child in Florida Baptist care because she had enlisted in the United States Army and was undergoing basic training out of state. E.R. had enlisted in order to provide her family a better life. It was initially anticipated that E.R. would be gone six months, but due to injuries sustained during basic training, she was actually gone for eight or nine months. There was no evidence of abuse, neglect or abandonment on E.R.'s part. During C.R.'s stay, Petitioners developed a negative impression of E.R. They did not think that E.R. called or wrote frequently enough. Petitioners had commented to Florida Baptist staff that E.R. was an unfit mother, that Petitioners provided C.R. with a better home than E.R. could, that E.R. did not love C.R., and that Petitioners could love C.R. more than E.R. could. Petitioners' opinion was based on their belief that no really good mother would take a job which required her to be away from her child for extended periods and a belief that C.R.'s grandmother was physically abusive towards C.R. Unfortunately, Petitioners let their beliefs about appropriate parenting interfere in their duties as foster parents to aid in reunification of a child with that child's legal parents. Florida Baptist staff also believed that Petitioners had become too attached to C.R., which caused them to attempt to undermine the Department's later attempts to reunify mother and child at the planned time E.R. would return from basic training and be able to provide a home to C.R. In late July 2001, Florida Baptist staff also became concerned about other behavior exhibited by Petitioners involving confidentiality issues and concerned that the Department had removed T.D. (aka "J.") from Petitioners' home. The behavior concerning confidentiality arose because Mrs. Zapata had discussed the fitness of E.R. to be C.R.'s custodial parent with a Department employee. C.R. was not a Department placement. However, it should be noted that the discussion was with a Department employee involved in the fostering program. Such an employee could reasonably be viewed as a person to report any suspected abuse or neglect to. In this instance, the conversation did not involve a report of abuse or neglect, but concerned Petitioners' belief that E.R. was not a good mother. On the other hand, the evidence was unclear whether the same confidentiality requirements regarding public placements by the Department appertain to private placements by the parents. The incident does cast doubt on Petitioners' awareness and desire to comply with privacy considerations should they be licensed by the Department. During the month of July 2001, T.D., also known as "J.", lived in Petitioner's home. T.D. was a little less than a year old at the time and had been placed in Petitioner's home by the Department because of ongoing juvenile dependency proceedings. On July 31 or August 1, 2001, the Department counselor, Wendy Cheney, picked T.D. up at Petitioner's home to take him to a doctor's appointment. Ms. Cheney noticed that there were crumbs and dirt in the car seat in which Petitioners had placed T.D. Ms. Cheney also noticed that T.D.'s clothes and diaper bag had a strong odor of spoiled milk. A crust also appeared on the nipple of the baby bottle and the eye medicine bottle Mrs. Zapata gave her to take with T.D. to the physician's appointment. During the preceding month, Ms. Cheney had visited Petitioners' home on at least a weekly basis to monitor T.D.'s situation. On many of these occasions, Ms. Cheney also observed that T.D.'s clothes had the same sour milk smell she experienced during the doctor's appointment. She also noticed during these visits that the nipples of T.D.'s baby bottles were not properly covered. On one occasion, Ms. Cheney saw T.D. drop his pacifier and then observed Mrs. Zapata pick it up and replace it in T.D.'s mouth without washing it off. This is of particular concern, as Petitioners had a long-haired dog whose hair was apparent on the floor of Petitioners' home. The Department removed T.D. from Petitioners' home because of these observations. Again, these observations cast serious doubt on the quality of hygienic care provided by Petitioners to foster children. There was no evidence offered to contradict the apparent lack of good hygienic care provided to T.D. However, there was also no evidence that Petitioners' care of T.D. constituted neglect or abuse of T.D., since a finding of neglect or abuse requires demonstration of harm or significantly dangerous conditions. Because of these concerns, Florida Baptist staff agreed that C.R. should be removed from Petitioners' home at least until these issues sorted themselves out. On August 1, 2001, Florida Baptist social worker Sue Kiser telephoned Mr. Zapata and scheduled an appointment for 4:30 p.m., on August 2, 2001, to discuss the reunification of C.R. with E.R. Later that day, Florida Baptist staff decided that since E.R. had recently returned from basic training, the optimum way of accomplishing reunification was to have E.R. meet Ms. Kiser and C.R. at a previously scheduled medical appointment on August 2, 2001, following which C.R. and E.R. would stay together at another foster home. Florida Baptist social worker, Jackie Barksdale, communicated this plan by telephone to Mr. Zapata on August 1, 2001. Mr. Zapata became angry and stated that he refused to allow C.R. to leave his home and go to visit with E.R. He accused Ms. Barksdale of "screwing with" C.R.'s life and committing "child abuse." He promised that "heads would roll" and disparaged E.R.'s family. Ms. Zapata then got on the telephone. She also accused Ms. Barksdale of child abuse and threatened to call the abuse hotline on Florida Baptist. Since no abuse reports were made by Petitioners, these threats were made as a bluff in an attempt to coerce Florida Baptist to leave C.R. with Petitioners. Given this conduct, the staff of Florida Baptist felt they had little choice but to remove C.R. from Petitioner's home. C.R. was removed from Petitioners' home on August 2, 2001. C.R. stayed in the other foster home without incident for about five weeks. C.R. and E.R. were then reunited, and continue to live together as a family. No reports of any problems between C.R. and E.R. have been received since that time. These facts clearly demonstrate Petitioners' unwillingness to cooperate in reunification plans for a child and mother. Petitioners permitted their low opinion regarding C.R.'s mother to interfere with their duty as foster parents. There was no evidence that Petitioners' attitude regarding the parents of foster children would not cause future interference in reunification efforts should their application for licensure be granted. An abused child, V.V., was placed in shelter care with Petitioners. V.V. had sustained a broken arm from abuse she had suffered. She stayed less than three days with Petitioners because her crying kept them up at night and interfered with Mrs. Zapata's home schooling of her biological children. Petitioners acted appropriately in requesting the removal of the child when it became apparent that the placement could not work out and does not demonstrate a lack of qualification for licensure. Finally, a pregnant teenage girl who wished to place her child with Florida Baptist wanted to see the home her child was to live in. Florida Baptist arranged for the girl to look at Petitioners' home. After the visit, Petitioners asked Florida Baptist never to ask them to submit to such an inspection, as they felt they were under some heightened level of scrutiny. Florida Baptist staff explained that parents frequently made this request, and Petitioners repeated that they did not wish to undergo it again. Petitioners request is troubling since one of the duties of the foster parent is to work with the biological parent of a foster child. Again, Petitioners' negative attitudes toward the parents of foster children demonstrate that Petitioners' application for licensure should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the application for a foster care license submitted by Petitioners Alfonso and Lynda Zapata. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Room 252-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Alfonso Zapata Lynda Zapata 1947 Treeline Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Paul F. 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 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing is whether Respondent's foster care license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact On July 1, 1995, Mildred Sands (Respondent) was issued a provisional foster home license by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Petitioner), with an effective period of July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996. Her license number is 0795-06-3. A provisional license is issued when all requirements for a license are not met and the licensee is given a specific time period to comply with the remaining requirements. Due to a court action involving a minor child, J. F., who was born on May 7, 1983, the court placed J. F. with Respondent. In order for the minor child to live with Respondent, Petitioner issued Respondent a provisional license. Prior to the placement, Respondent knew J. F.'s mother for several years on a personal basis. The mother and her children were at one time living with Respondent. Respondent is J. F.'s godmother and has interacted with her since J. F.'s birth. Prior to licensing, on June 12, 1995, Respondent signed a "Bilateral Service Agreement" (Bilateral Agreement) with Petitioner, agreeing to abide by or with several conditions. The Bilateral Agreement provides in pertinent part: 2. We are fully and directly responsible to the Department for the care of the child. * * * 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 for the child (i.e. health, school problems, emotional problems). * * * 16. We will comply with all requirements for a licensed foster home as prescribed by the Department. * * * 18. We understand that any breach of the Agreement may result in the immediate removal of the child(ren) and revocation of the license. Respondent signed a "Discipline Policy Agreement" (Discipline Agreement) on July 19, 1993, when she was initially licensed as a foster care provider and on June 12, 1995, during her re-licensure process. The Discipline Agreement signed on July 19, 1993, provides in pertinent part: The following disciplinary practices are FORBIDDEN in caring for your foster child. Failure to comply may result in an investigation and possible closure of your home. * * * Hitting a child with an object. Slapping or spanking a child, or ANY OTHER physical discipline. The Discipline Agreement signed on June 12, 1995, 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 INVESTIGATION 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. On February 14, 1995, Petitioner waived placement requirements in order for J. F.'s siblings to be placed with Respondent to keep the family unit together. J. F.'s siblings had been living with her grandmother who had become ill and was unable to care for the children. On September 1, 1995, Petitioner received a report of alleged child abuse allegedly committed by Respondent against J. F., who was 12 years old, at Respondent's foster home. Respondent was allegedly disciplining J. F. Within a short span of time that same day, Petitioner began an investigation. The minor child, J. F., had raised bruises, swelling, abrasions, and redness on the lower part of her legs. Also, J. F. had a small scratch on one of her legs and a scratch on her left arm. The injuries were purportedly inflicted by a ruler. No expert opinion was presented to confirm that the injuries were consistent with such an instrument, and no attempt was made to obtain the instrument used to commit the alleged abuse. Petitioner removed all the children from Respondent's home. Petitioner notified Respondent that it was revoking her foster home license due to the alleged excessive corporal punishment. The minor child, J. F., did not testify at the hearing. 1/ Respondent did not inflict the injuries to the minor child, J. F. 2/ Respondent did not use corporal punishment of any kind on the minor child, J. F. Respondent did not violate the Discipline Agreement. Respondent was responsible for the supervision and care of the minor child, J. F. Respondent was not aware of J. F.'s injuries and was, therefore, unable to notify Petitioner of the injuries or to obtain medical attention for J. F.'s injuries. Respondent had allowed the children's adult sibling, who was 19 years old, to live with her and the children. Respondent failed to notify Petitioner that the adult sister would be and was living in her home. In failing to notify Petitioner, Respondent violated the Bilateral Agreement, paragraph numbered 8.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the foster home license of Mildred Sands not be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 1st day of August, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's foster home license should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact From August 24, 2004, and throughout the period material to this proceeding, Petitioner Jannifer Thompson ("Thompson") and her husband, Dalkeith, held a license that authorized them to operate a family foster home under the supervision——and within the regulatory jurisdiction——of Respondent Department of Children and Family Services ("DCF"). Like all licensed foster parents, Thompson and her husband had entered into a written contract with DCF known as the "Bilateral Service Agreement" ("Agreement"), most recently as of April 30, 2006. This Agreement, by its terms, "reflect[ed] standards of care that are current requirements in Florida [law]." On September 14, 2006, a counselor named Elboney Ojobor, who was employed by a private agency to whom DCF had delegated various responsibilities pursuant to contract, made a routine quarterly visit to Thompson's home. Ms. Ojobor was covering for a colleague (Rondalyn Woulard) who was on maternity leave; she had not met Thompson previously. While interviewing Thompson, Ms. Ojobor learned that Thompson was the only adult living in the home at the time, and that Thompson was getting divorced from Dalkeith. Ms. Ojobor understood this to mean that Mr. Thompson had moved out of the home permanently. In fact, Mr. Thompson was away from the home then not because he had moved to another residence ahead of a divorce, but because his job with a shipping company had required him to be out of town for an extended period. Nevertheless, the couple was estranged; Mr. Thompson would leave the marital home for good in the middle of October 2006. Ms. Ojobor's visit was not the first occasion on which Thompson had notified DCF (through its private-sector agent) that her marriage to Dalkeith was in trouble. During an earlier home visit (probably around June 2006, during the quarter immediately preceding Ms. Ojobor's visit in September), Thompson had told her regular counselor, Ms. Woulard, that she might divorce Dalkeith. Ms. Ojobor was not aware of this previous communication, however, and thus she reported the apparent change in circumstances (Mr. Thompson's absence) to her supervisor. The upshot was that on September 15, 2006, Ms. Ojobor called Thompson to inform her that, if she were to continue operating the foster home as a single parent, she would need to obtain a new license. As it happened, whatever steps Thompson took thereafter to become re-licensed came quickly to naught because, in early October 2006, DCF received an allegation that children in Ms. Thompson's home were being physically abused. Having brought up the abuse report, the undersigned believes it necessary here to interrupt the narrative flow of the findings, to call attention to some important points. The most serious charge against Thompson in this case is that she used "excessive" corporal punishment on foster children in her care. The accusation is not that Thompson was found by some other agency or investigator to have abused a foster child or children. The distinction is critical. Because DCF has alleged that Thompson used corporal punishment excessively, it is not sufficient (or even necessary) for DCF to prove that someone else, after investigating allegations of abuse, concluded that Thompson had inflicted some sort of physical injury on a foster child. Rather, DCF must prove that Thompson, in fact, actually used corporal punishment, which is a different fact. Indeed, that someone else found Thompson guilty of physical abuse is not especially probative, in this de novo proceeding, of the salient factual dispute, namely whether Thompson used corporal punishment on foster children.2 Against this backdrop, the undersigned finds that, on October 9, 2006, DCF referred a report of abuse concerning Thompson to the local Child Protective Team ("CPT"). DCF requested that the CPT examine the allegedly abused foster child and make an assessment of the situation. One member of the CPT who took part in this particular assessment was Karl Dorelien. Though not a medical provider, Mr. Dorelien was present for the medical examination of the child in question, whose name is T. P. The examination was performed by an advanced registered nurse practitioner ("ARNP"). Mr. Dorelien testified at hearing. The ARNP did not. At the time of the examination, Mr. Dorelien saw some bruising on T. P.'s forearm. T. P. told Mr. Dorelien and the ARNP that she had been struck by a belt. The CPT did not independently investigate T. P.'s statement. Mr. Dorelien and the ARNP accepted at face value T. P.'s statement about the cause of her injury. The ARNP found that T. P.'s wound was "not accidental." (Mr. Dorelien specifically denied having the expertise to ascertain whether a bruise was caused accidentally or intentionally. There is, it should be added, no persuasive evidence that the ARNP possesses such expertise, either.) Based on the medical examination, the CPT concluded that Thompson had struck T. P. with a belt. (It is not clear how the CPT determined that Thompson——as opposed to someone else——caused T. P.'s injury.3) The evidence shows, in short, that the CPT found Thompson had caused bodily injury to T. P., a foster child then in her care, whom (the CPT determined) Thompson had hit with a belt. There is, however, no persuasive evidence upon which the undersigned independently can find that Thompson actually hit T. P. with a belt (or otherwise). How can this be? First, no one claiming to have personal knowledge of the matter testified at hearing that Thompson had struck T. P. with a belt. (T. P. was not called as a witness.) Thompson denied having perpetrated the alleged misdeed. Second, although there is competent and credible evidence (Mr. Dorelien's testimony) that T. P.'s forearm was bruised, the only evidence as to the cause of this injury was hearsay: (1) T. P.'s statements to the CPT revealing that she had been struck with a belt and (2) the ARNP's opinion (which Mr. Dorelien repeated at hearing) that the wound was not accidental. This uncorroborated hearsay is not a legally sufficient basis for any finding of fact, and even if it were, the undersigned, as the trier of fact, would give it too little weight to support a finding.4 Finally, even if there were sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that T. P. had been struck with a belt (and there isn't), there yet would be nothing but Mr. Dorelien's ambiguous testimony concerning the substance of T. P.'s out-of-court statement, coupled with inference or speculation (based on uncorroborated hearsay), tending to establish that Thompson did the striking. Again, such "proof" is neither legally sufficient nor, in any event, logically persuasive enough to support a finding that Thompson was at fault for the child's injury. DCF alleges that, in addition to striking T. P. with a belt (which allegation was not proved, as just found), Thompson also spanked J. D. F. and his brother, O. F. Both of these boys, respectively aged 8 and 7 years at the time of hearing, testified against their former foster mother. Each claimed that Thompson had spanked him with a belt. As witnesses, however, the boys did not inspire confidence in the truth of their accounts. Each gave testimony that was confusing, sometimes inconsistent, and lacking in precision. Neither one seemed distinctly to remember the important events at issue, much less any of the details surrounding them, causing the undersigned to wonder, at times, whether the boys were independently recalling the underlying events or, rather, testifying from the memory of what someone might have told them was alleged to have occurred. Doubtless many of these boys' shortcomings as witnesses stemmed from their youth and immaturity. Even so, all witnesses, regardless of age and experience, must be measured according to the same standards of credibility; the bar can be neither lowered nor raised to conform to a particular witness's capacity for giving testimony, for doing so would put a thumb on the scales of justice. At bottom, the accounts of J. D. F. and O. F., though not inherently incredible, nevertheless lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to produce in the undersigned's mind a firm belief or conviction that Thompson had spanked them with a belt. The undersigned hesitates to say more than that such is a possibility. Against the shaky testimonies of the boys was offered the decidedly stronger testimony of their sister, Sancia Jeantil, who swore that while she was living in Thompson's home (which admittedly was not at all times her brothers were there), she never saw Thompson spank either J. D. F. or O. F. She further testified that neither of her siblings had ever complained to her about being beaten. The undersigned has accorded considerable weight to Ms. Jeantil's testimony, because it seems unlikely that she would prevaricate to protect Thompson at her brothers' expense. Although Ms. Jeantil was not always present in the home, her testimony, which the undersigned accepts, is persuasive proof of the pertinent negative proposition, i.e. that Thompson did not use corporal punishment on the boys. Thompson herself testified at hearing and denied having used corporal punishment on J. D. F., O. F., or any other foster child. Mr. Thompson, too, testified that corporal punishment had not been used on any of the foster children in their home. Thompson's own child, J. T., said the same. None of these witnesses conclusively proved the negative of DCF's allegation regarding corporal punishment, but then again it was not Thompson's burden to disprove the charge. What these witnesses did do, effectively, was establish a credible, if simple, theory of innocence: Thompson never beat the foster children in her care. The undersigned has determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence as a whole fails to produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, that Thompson used corporal punishment on any of the foster children under her care. Aside from the allegations regarding corporal punishment, DCF has charged Thompson with the lesser offense of failing immediately to notify DCF that her husband had moved out of the home. The evidence shows, however, that Thompson satisfied her duty to notify DCF concerning changes that might affect the life and circumstances of the foster children residing in her home. To recap, briefly, the material facts, Thompson informed DCF's agent, Ms. Woulard, of the possibility that she and Dalkeith might divorce; thus, DCF was on actual notice of a potential change in Thompson's marital status. Thompson likely gave DCF this advance warning in June 2006; in any case, she spoke up long before Dalkeith established a new residence and before the divorce proceeding commenced. There is no clear proof that the couple's situation had changed materially as of September 14, 2006, when Mr. Ojobor visited the home. Without question, Mr. Thompson was away at that time——but he worked for a shipping company and thus extended absences were part of his routine. Having all the evidence of record in view, the undersigned is not convinced that Mr. Thompson had "moved out" of the home as of mid-September 2006 in the sense of having permanently relocated from that residence, which is what DCF maintains. While there is some evidence that such was the case, there is also persuasive evidence that Mr. Thompson did not leave the home for good until October 2006——evidence sufficient to preclude the undersigned from finding, without hesitancy, that DCF's allegation is accurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DCF enter a final order approving the renewal of Thompson's foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2007.
