The Issue Whether the Respondent, Department of Children and Families (DCF), may impose a moratorium for new residents at The Haven Center, Inc., for those who are enrolled in the Developmental Services Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Program (DS Waiver).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating residential facilities that provide DS waiver services. Sunrise Opportunities, Inc., Sunrise Communities, Inc., and The Haven Center, Inc., are members of the Sunrise group of providers that serve individuals with developmental disabilities. Sunrise Opportunities, Inc., is a charitable, tax-exempt entity that provides residential and day treatment services to individuals under the DS Waiver program. The Haven Center, Inc., owns seven homes located on 23+/- acres in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The homes located at The Haven Center, Inc., are operated by Sunrise Opportunities, Inc. Such homes have been monitored and reviewed by the DCF on numerous occasions. The reviews or inspections have never revealed a significant deficiency. Moreover, historically the DCF has determined that residents at The Haven Center, Inc., have received a high quality of care. For some unknown time the parties were aware of a need to move individuals residing at The Haven Center into community homes in the greater South Miami-Dade County area. Concurrently, it was planned that individuals in substandard housing would then be moved into The Haven Center. This "transition plan" as it is called in the record would be accomplished as improvements were completed to the Sunrise properties. That the parties anticipated the transition plan would be implemented as stated is undisputed. Because it believed the transition plan had been agreed upon and would be followed, Sunrise Opportunities, Inc., incurred a considerable debt and expended significant expenses to purchase and improve homes in the South Miami-Dade County area. Additionally, DS Waiver participants were moved from The Haven Center to the six-person homes in South Miami-Dade County. In fact, over fifty percent of The Haven Center residents have made the move. In contrast with the transition plan, only 12 individuals were allowed to move into The Haven Center. Instead, DCF notified the Petitioners of a moratorium prohibiting the placement of DS Waiver residents into The Haven Center. This moratorium, represented to be "temporary," is on-going and was unabated through the time of hearing. The moratorium prompted the instant administrative action. Upon notice of DCF's intention to impose a moratorium on The Haven Center, the Petitioners timely challenged such agency action. DCF based the moratorium upon an Order Approving Settlement Agreement entered in the case of Prado-Steiman v. Bush, Case No. 98-6496-CIV-FERGUSON, by United States District Judge Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. on August 8, 2001. The Petitioners had objected to the approval of the Settlement Agreement in Prado-Steiman but the court overruled the objectors finding they, as providers of services to the DS Waiver residents, did not have standing in the litigation. The Prado-Steiman case was initiated by a group of disabled individuals on behalf of the class of similarly situated persons who claimed the State of Florida had failed to meet its responsibility to such individuals under Federal law. Without detailing the case in its totality, it is sufficient for purposes of this case to find that the Prado-Steiman Settlement Agreement imposed specific criteria on the State of Florida which were to be met according to the prospective plan approved and adopted by the court. At the time the Prado-Steiman case was filed, The Haven Center was licensed as a residential habilitation center. After the Settlement Agreement was executed by the parties in Prado-Steiman, but before the court entered its Order Approving Settlement Agreement, the licensure status of The Haven Center changed. Effective June 1, 2001, The Haven Center became licensed as seven group homes together with a habilitation center. Pertinent to this case are specific provisions of the Prado-Steiman Settlement Agreement (Agreement). These provisions are set forth below. First, regarding group home placements, the Agreement provides that: The parties agree that they prefer that individuals who are enrolled in the Waiver [DS Waiver] live and receive services in smaller facilities. Consistent with this preference, the parties agree to the following: The Department [DCF] will target choice counseling to those individuals, [sic] enrolled on the Waiver who presently reside in residential habilitation centers (where more than 15 persons reside and receive services). The focus of this choice counseling will be to provide information about alternative residential placement options. The Department will begin this targeted choice counseling by December 1, 2000, and will substantially complete the choice counseling by December 1, 2001. * * * 4. The Department and the Agency [Agency for Health Care Administration] agree that, in the residential habilitation centers, if a vacancy occurs on or after the date this agreement is approved by the Court, the Department will not fill that vacancy with an individual enrolled on the Waiver. (Emphasis added) None of the individually licensed group homes at The Haven Center is authorized to house more than 15 persons. All of the group home licenses at The Haven Center were approved before the Prado-Steiman Court approved the Agreement. The Agreement also provides that the parties: . . . have agreed that the Court may retain jurisdiction of this litigation until December 31, 2001, at which time this case will be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs may seek to continue the jurisdiction of the Court and to pursue any of the relief requested in this lawsuit only if they can show material breach as evidenced by systemic deficiencies in the Defendants' implementation of the Plan of Compliance. In any motion to continue the jurisdiction of the Court, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that alleged breaches and any proposed cure were fully disclosed to the state defendants consistent with the "Notice and Cure" provisions set forth below in paragraphs 7-10 below, that the action requested by the plaintiffs is required by existing law, and the State Defendants have refused to take action required by law. Such relief may not be sought after the scheduled dismissal of the litigation. Absent the allegation of material breach in a pending motion, the Court will dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice on December 31, 2001. (Emphasis added) Also pertinent to this case, the Agreement provides: 19. The parties' breach, or alleged breach, of this Agreement (or of the terms contained herein) will not be used by any party as a basis for any further litigation. "Systemic problems or deficiencies" is defined by the Agreement to mean: problems or deficiencies which are common in the administration of the Waiver, inconsistent with the terms of this Stipulated Agreement, and in violation of federal law. Isolated instances of deficiencies or violations of federal law, without evidence of more pervasive conduct, are not "systemic" in nature. State otherwise, a problem or deficiency is systemic if it requires restructuring of the Florida Developmental Services Home and Community-Based Services Waiver program itself in order to comply with the provisions of federal law regarding the Waiver; but that it is not "systemic" if it only involves a substantive claim having to do with limited components of the program, and if the administrative process is capable of correcting the problem. After the Agreement was adopted the Respondent advised Petitioners to continue with the transition plan. On or about September 1, 2001, the Petitioners and the Respondent entered into contracts for the group homes operated at The Haven Center. Each home is properly licensed, has honored its contracts to provide services to disabled individuals, and has complied with state licensure laws. A licensed Residential Habilitation Center may not have a licensed capacity of less than nine. Advocacy issued a letter dated March 8, 2002, that alleged systemic problems constituting material breaches of the Agreement. Among the cited alleged deficiencies is the failure of the state to ensure . . . that locally-licensed providers receiving waiver funds for providing group- home services in fact are providing services in that setting rather than in institutional settings. Examples include: a) A former residential habilitation center known as Haven is now licensed as a group home in District 11 (Miami/Dade) and receives HCBS waiver funds. There is no evidence that The Haven Center is providing services in any setting other than as licensed by the Respondent. That is, there is no evidence it is not operating as individually licensed group homes. Further, Advocacy had actual knowledge of the instant administrative action. In short, it did not attempt to participate in the Petitioners' challenge to the moratorium. DCF has imposed a moratorium on no other licensed group home in the State of Florida. The group homes at The Haven Center are the sole targets for this administrative decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, enter a Final Order lifting the moratorium on placements of DS Waiver participants at The Haven Center's group homes. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Sevices 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Veronica E. Donnelly, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue, Second Floor Miami, Florida 33133
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Virgil and Catherine Dunigan own property on a corner lot located at 904 Richards Avenue in Clearwater. The lot size is approximately 11,609 square feet and the house, with approximately 2,757 square feet, has five bedrooms, three baths and an enclosed garage. The Dunigans utilize the residence as a licensed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) and currently provide housing and care for five elderly residents. The Dunigans' property is zoned as RS-8, which is a single-family residential zoning district under the City of Clearwater's Land Development Code. Within this RS-8 zoning district, the permitted uses are detached single- family dwellings, family care and accessory uses. Section 135.026, Land Development Code. The present use of the property as an ACLF for five residents falls within the definition of "family care" and is a permitted use. The Dunigans now desire to increase the number of elderly residents from five to nine, which would change the nature of the use of the residence from "family care" to "Level I group care." The Land Development Code provides that a Level I group care use may be permitted as a conditional use within the RS-8 zoning district. Section 135.027. The Dunigans have been licensed by the State to operate an ACLF for nine residents. The Land Development Code sets forth both general standards and supplementary standards by category of use which must be met before a conditional use is authorized. Section 136.025. Among the specific standards which must be met for group care facilities are those pertaining to floor space and lot size. Sections 136.025(c)(14) a and 136.020(e)(2) a and b. As pertinent to this proceeding, the floor space required for a group care facility is 1,600 square feet plus 200 square feet per additional resident beyond 6 persons. The minimum lot area for facilities which house 6 persons is 6,000 square feet, plus 1,500 square feet per additional resident. The off-street parking spaces required for detached single family dwellings are two spaces per dwelling unit. Section 136.022(f)(4) a 1, Land Development Code. Group care facilities are required to provide two parking spaces for the first six residents, plus one space for each additional six residents or fraction thereof, plus one space per two nonresident employees or supervisors. Section 136.022(f)(4) a 5, Land Development Code. The Dunigans presently have two parking spaces on the property. At the hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board and at the appeal hearing before the undersigned Hearing Officer, several neighbors residing in the immediate vicinity of the Dunigans' ACLF testified in opposition to the application. While they generally had no complaints regarding the operation of the existing facility with a total of five residents, they were concerned that any increase in the number of residents would present traffic and parking problems, would decrease property values, would result in an over-crowded condition for the facility's residents and would convert the nature of the facility to more of a business venture than a residential facility.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Donna Vermeulen, is eligible to be relicensed as a family foster home.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed as a family foster home in Dade County, Florida, for approximately 19 years. The Respondent had received all of the training that was required for such a license. In 1997, Rosemary Bridges was a foster care counselor employed by the DCFS. In June of that year, Ms. Bridges was assigned to be the foster care counselor for three of the four foster children who were living with the Respondent at that time. Shortly after her assignment as foster care counselor for those children, Ms. Bridges made her first visit to the Respondent's home to check on the status of the children. On her fist visit to the Respondent's home, Ms. Bridges found the home to be untidy and unclean. There were clothes everywhere, dishes piled up, and no linen on the children's beds. The children all looked unkempt. The hair was not combed on any of the children. Ms. Bridges thought the general condition of the Respondent's home was potentially hazardous to the health of the foster children and she considered the possibility of removing the foster children from the home. On the day of Ms. Bridges' first visit, a therapist was also present. Ms. Bridges and the therapist discussed the situation with the Respondent. On that day the Respondent's arm was in a cast, and the Respondent explained that, because she had a broken arm, she was not able to take care of the house and the foster children as well as she usually did. The foster children had been with the Respondent for a long time, and the Respondent wanted them to continue to stay with her. Following the discussion with the Respondent, Ms. Bridges decided not to remove the foster children from the Respondent's home. Instead, Ms. Bridges made arrangements with the Children's Home Society for the Respondent to receive services for herself and for the foster children. Ms. Bridges returned to the Respondent's home a month later. The condition of the home was the same as it was during the June visit. The foster children were again unkempt and unclean. At the time of the visit, Ms. Bridges was also concerned about reports of inappropriate activities involving the foster children and one of the Respondent's two sons.2 Ms. Bridges and the children's therapist continued to work with the Respondent in an effort to improve the situation in the Respondent's home. Sara Leidtke is a mental health counselor who works primarily with children in foster homes, doing intensive on-site therapy. In February of 1997, Ms. Leidtke began providing therapy to three of the foster children in the Respondent's home. Ms. Leidtke continued to provide therapy twice a week to those children while they were living with the Respondent.3 All three of the foster children were supposed to be taking medication prescribed by a physician at the clinic where Ms. Leidtke worked. The medication was to treat hyperactivity and depression. One of the foster children was having nightly episodes of bed-wetting. On numerous occasions Ms. Leidtke recommended that the Respondent take that child to the enuresis clinic for treatment. The same recommendation was made by the physician who was treating the child's psychological problems. The Respondent never took that foster child to the enuresis clinic. From February of 1997 through August of 1997, Ms. Leidtke was concerned about the personal hygiene of the three foster children to whom she was providing therapy services. Ms. Leidtke described her concerns in the following words:4 All three of the children exhibited poor hygiene while in the Vermeulen home. Their clothes were often soiled, their hair dirty, and they were often unbathed with a strong body order. This therapist worked with them on this and gave Mrs. Vermeulen a hygiene checklist to utilize with them. The children spent a great deal of time working on this during therapy, but this therapist had difficulty getting Mrs. Vermeulen to follow through with checklists on days that therapy did not take place. On a number of occasions, the children stated that they were not able to attend to their hygiene because they did not have toothbrushes or other personal items. [J.] stated numerous times that she did not ever wash her hair, and that she did not use deodorant/antiperspirant because the family shared one roll-on deodorant and she did not want to use it or could not find it. When asked about these difficulties, Mrs. Vermeulen stated that the children were lying and that she was waiting on a check to buy the items that they needed. On two separate occasions, this therapist arranged for a PsychSolutions Activities Coordinator to come to the home to do the children's hair, but Mrs. Vermeulen canceled both appointments. In August of 1997, Ms. Bridges made another visit to the Respondent's home. Again, the condition of the home was the same as it had been on the two prior visits. Again, the foster children were unkempt and unclean. Ms. Bridges decided, primarily because of the lack of improvement in the condition of the home and the lack of improvement in the care of the foster children, that the foster children should be relocated to another foster home. In the course of making arrangements for the relocation, Ms. Bridges discovered a several month supply of prescription medicines for the three foster children. The amount of the prescription medicines in the home confirmed that the foster children had not been taking the medicines with the frequency prescribed by the physician. On August 29, 1998, when Ms. Leidtke arrived at the Respondent's home, she found that the Respondent's other son, M. V., was sitting at the Respondent's home visiting with the Respondent. M. V. is the Respondent's adopted son. In August of 1997, M. V. was 18 or 19 years old. On that day, M. V. had apparently escaped from a residential treatment program, where he had been confined for approximately four years. M. V. was being treated because, approximately four years earlier, he had sexually assaulted one of the Respondent's foster children, as well as the Respondent's adopted daughter. The foster child who had been sexually assaulted by M. V. was still living in the Respondent's home. M. V.'s presence in the home was very upsetting to that child. Later the same day, the police were called and the police returned M. V. to the treatment facility from which he had escaped. On August 29, 1997, the DCFS removed the foster children from the Respondent's home and placed them in another foster home.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying the Respondent's application for renewal of her family foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's license to provide foster care should be revoked for any of the reasons set forth in the Department's revocation letter dated July 23, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, the Respondent was licensed by the Petitioner to operate a foster home. In conjunction with the placement of foster children in her home, the Respondent signed an Agreement to Provide substitute Care for Dependent Children. In that document, the Respondent agreed to the following conditions, among others: 2 - We are fully and directly responsible to the Department for the care of the child. * * * - We will not permit the removal of the child from our home, except by an authorized representative of the Department or by instruction of such representative. - We will not give the child into the care or physical custody of any other person(s), including the natural parent(s), without the consent of a representative of the Department. * * * 9 - We will accept dependent children into our home for care only from the Department and will make no plans for boarding other children or adults. * * * 11 - We will notify the Department immediately of any change in our address, employment, living arrangements, family composition, or law enforcement involvement. * * * 15 - We will comply with all requirements for a licensed substitute care home as prescribed by the Department. On May 1, 1997, a family services counselor visited the Respondent's home on a routine visit to check on the status of one of the foster children in the Respondent's home. During that visit the counselor observed various hazardous and unsanitary conditions in the home. Several upstairs windows were open. The windows had no screens or other barriers to prevent a child from falling out the window. There was a foul stench in the house. Contributing to the stench were numerous plates of decaying food randomly scattered throughout the home. There was a light fixture with a bare bulb and no light shade. On May 1, 1997, the child that the counselor was visiting was seven years-old. The counselor was concerned, for several reasons, about the quality of care the child was receiving. The child was very dirty, and did not appear to have been bathed recently. The child also had a large, obvious ringworm. The counselor asked the Respondent if the child had been taken to a doctor for treatment of the ringworm. The Respondent admitted that she had not taken the child to the doctor and then stated some illogical and frivolous reasons for her failure to seek medical attention for the foster child. During the May 1, 1997, visit, the seven year-old foster child told the counselor that the children in the neighborhood hated him. When asked for details, the foster child described an incident during which, while he was outside, a group of neighborhood children removed all of the foster child's clothing and then urinated on him. When questioned about this incident, the Respondent admitted that she had witnessed the incident. The Respondent's only excuse for allowing the incident to occur was that she had told the foster child not to go outside and he disobeyed her and went outside without permission. On various unspecified occasions during the latter part of 1997 and the first three months of 1998, the Respondent's minor grandson, who sometimes lived with the Respondent and sometimes lived with his mother, engaged in sexual intercourse with one of the female minor foster children in the Respondent's home. The Respondent was aware that her grandson had engaged in sexual intercourse with one of her foster children. The Respondent made ineffectual efforts to prevent her grandson from having sexual intercourse with the female foster child. At least three months after discovering this conduct, the Respondent advised personnel of the DCFS for the first time that her grandson had been having sexual intercourse with one of the foster children in the Respondent's home. Around mid-afternoon on January 9, 1998, a police office of the South Bay Police Department went to the Respondent's home at the request of a family services counselor of the DCFS, who was making a routine visit to check on the status of two of the foster children living at that home. On that afternoon, the only adults present were the counselor from DCFS and the police officer. Two of the Respondent's foster children were home without any adult supervision. Those two foster children were thirteen and fifteen years of age, respectively. On January 9, 1998, the Respondent was on a trip outside the State of Florida. She had been gone for at least two days and was not expected to return for several more days. She had one of her foster children with her on the out-of-state trip. The Respondent had not advised the DCFS that she was taking a foster child out of the State of Florida, nor did she have permission from anyone at DCFS to take the foster child out of the State of Florida. Similarly, the Respondent had not advised the DCFS that, while on her out-of-state trip, she was leaving two of her foster children in her home, supposedly under the car and supervision of her adult brother, Leroy Ball. Mr. Ball had not been approved by anyone at DCFS as a temporary substitute caregiver for any of the foster children living with the Respondent. On January 9, 1998, the Respondent's home presented a variety of hazardous and unsanitary conditions. These conditions are perhaps best described in the words of the police officer who was present that day:1 Upon arriving at the scene I found that the children were left abandon[ed] completely. There was no adult supervision whatsoever. I found the interior of the house was in disarray. There were numerous unsanitary conditions within the household, human defecation, rotting food, open garbage cans, knives on the floor, tools, equipment, alcoholic containers that were half empty, strewn all over the house. * * * The baby training potty was right at the entry to the kitchen in the living room and it had urine, mold growing on top of the water and looked like defecation inside the bowl itself. * * * There was an overabundance of garbage and clothes. It was just everywhere. It wasn't just one place. It wasn't a bag here, a bag there, piece here, piece there. It was strewn everywhere on every piece of furniture, on the floor. Within every two feet there was garbage of some sort on the floor as if someone had thrown bags of garbage. It was just thrown all over the house. * * * I did look in the kitchen and I took photographs which I submitted and I found food that was half-cooked and half raw sitting there decaying, which was moldy and just rotting in the kitchen. * * * [Referring to a photograph] That was the upstairs bathroom. There was defecation in the water in the toilet. I was unaware if water was actually working in the residence at that time. It didn't appear to me that it was. I would've assumed that somebody would've flushed the toilet if it hadn't (sic) been. It seemed like it had been that way for several days. The two foster children who were left in the Respondent's home while she went on an out-of-state trip did not have a key to the house. Accordingly, they were unable to lock the house. On January 9, 1998, the police officer and the family services counselor interviewed the two foster children. Information provided by the children indicated that the Respondent had been out-of-town for two days and that a man named Leroy Ball was supposed to be taking care of them, but that they had not had any adult supervision during the past two days. Efforts to locate Leroy Ball were unsuccessful. Due to the lack of adult supervision and due to the hazardous and unsanitary condition of the home, the police officer and the family services counselor removed the two foster children from the Respondent's home. The police officer took one of the foster children (for whom a warrant was outstanding) to the police station, where the child was fed and then transported to a juvenile detention facility. The family services counselor took the other foster child and delivered the child to another foster home. Later in the afternoon of January 9, 1998, a child protective investigator went to the Respondent's home. The only person present at that time was Leroy Ball, an adult man, who is the Respondent's brother. During an interview with the investigator, Leroy Ball explained that his sister, the Respondent, had to go out of town to a funeral and that during her absence he was supposed to care for the two foster children who had earlier that day been found in the home without any adult supervision. Mr. Ball also explained that he worked each day from approximately 5:00 a.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. At the time of the interview, Mr. Ball did not know the whereabouts of the two foster children he was supposed to be caring for. Several days later, on January 13, 1998, the child protective investigator interviewed the Respondent. During that interview the Respondent admitted that she had made an out-of- state trip with one of her foster children, and also admitted that she had left two of the foster children at her home, with the understanding that her brother, Mr. Ball, would be supervising them. In subsequent interviews with Department personnel, the Respondent blamed the unsanitary conditions in her home on the two children she had left there and on her brother's failure to do what he was supposed to do. The DCFS never consented to Mr. Ball being placed in a temporary role supervising any of the foster children who lived with the Respondent. While licensed to operate a foster home, the Respondent was required to keep the DCFS informed as to who was living in the Respondent's home. While so licensed, there were several occasions on which the Respondent failed to report changes as to who was living in her home. On at least one occasion the Respondent provided the DCFS with false information about who was living in her home.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case revoking the Respondent's foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1999.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioners should be granted approval by the City of Clearwater of their request for expansion of a six-bed group home facility, located at 1430 Palmetto Street in Clearwater, to eight beds.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Generosa T. Santos and Rose W. Milam, operate the White Palace, an assisted living facility, in a residence owned by Petitioner Milam, located at 1430 Palmetto Street in Clearwater. The facility is currently licensed for six residents and has been in operation for several years. The property in question is a single family residence located in an area zoned RS 8, (residential urban), on the north, east and west, and recreational/open space on the south. In actuality, all parcels, including the property in question, except for the golf course on the south, are occupied by single family residences. On December 15, 1996, Ms. Santos applied to the City's Planning and Zoning Board for a conditional use permit to expand the existing six bed Level I Group Care Facility to a maximum capacity of eight residents. The Petitioners' request was considered by the Board at its public meeting held on February 4, 1997. Prior to that time, the Petitioners' application was reviewed by Sandra E. Glatthorn, a planning administrator for the City who determined that the property, a single family residence, has been utilized since 1983 as an assisted living facility for six adults. In 1985, the facility was permitted for eight residents, but for two years thereafter, the facility did not operate as such and that permit lapsed. In March 1994, Ms. Santos requested zoning approval for six clients, which was approved. After her review of the application in issue, Ms. Glatthorn prepared a staff report which supported the request. This report was based on the matters submitted with the application. Her review indicated that the intended use for which the application was submitted appeared to be compatible with the neighborhood and the zoning requirements, but at the meeting of the Board held on February 4, 1997, several neighbors came forward to present evidence that the proposed use, based on demonstrated conditions, was not compatible with but had a negative impact on surrounding properties. An RS 8 zoning category is generally limited to single family residences or to family care facilities for up to six clients. Once the projected client population exceeds six residents, the category becomes Level I Group Care. Clients in either case can be elderly, physically or mentally handicapped, or non-dangerously mentally ill. Criminal or dangerous clients are not allowed within either category. Distance requirements between the residence in issue and surrounding properties are not in issue here. On reconsideration of this application, after the Board meeting, the planning staff now recommends denial. At the Board meeting, several neighbors expressed their opposition to the approval of the requested permit. They cited what they considered to be incidents of a nature inconsistent with the quiet enjoyment of their property, including aberrant and disconcerting behavior by residents of the existing facility which made them uncomfortable and precluded them from a worry-free occupancy of their property. Residents of the facility were seen to wander the neighborhood, to verbally abuse neighbors and shout out obscenities, to seek access to neighboring properties and to occasion a police response to complaints by neighbors. Mr. Santos opined that the neighborhood opposition to the increase in the number of beds is based on an opinion held that Petitioners are not capable of running the facility and on the Petitioners as a family. He rejects the contention by some neighbors that his children, who occupy the house along with their parents and the clients, are not being brought up in a good environment. This is not in issue. The decision to operate the home as an assisted living concept was not a spur of the moment decision by the Petitioners. They researched the possibility thoroughly before deciding to operate it. Mr. Santos asserts that the neighbors claim the residents at the facility are abandoned, but this is not so. The residents have families who visit them and who take the residents for off- facility visits. In addition, he claims, the residents are not violent. Before admission to the facility, potential residents are screened to insure they are not violent or dangerous. He contends he would not expose his family, which lives in the facility, to dangerous residents. The staff of the facility is made up of members of the Santos family. Any clients who created trouble at the facility have been removed from it at Mr. Santos' instigation. Though residents are not restricted to the facility grounds, if there is a problem with a resident, that resident is removed from the home in an effort to satisfy the neighbors. Though Mr. Santos believes he has a good relationship with most of the neighbors, he cannot seem to get through to the Popes. Ms. Santos and Ms. Milam are willing to work with the neighbors to alleviate their anxieties regarding the facility and, if that is what it takes to do so, will agree to limit the occupancy of the facility only to elderly clients. Only Mr. and Mrs. Pope appeared at the instant hearing. Both expressed substantial objection to the expansion of the facility. Their concerns are based on the fact that residents of the facility have come to their home next door and banged on the door seeking entrance; have screamed obscenities at them while they were in their back yard; and on the report that the owners will move out if the increase in resident authorization is approved and bring in other people to care for the residents. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Pope have ever been in the facility. It appears, also, that on only one occasion did residents come to their home to seek entry. Mr. Pope admits to being quick to anger and to being prejudiced against Orientals. He served in the South Pacific during World War II. Mr. And Mrs. Santos are Orientals. Neither the Popes nor their neighbors who appeared at the Board's February 4 meeting want the facility in their residential community. Most of them have spent their entire lives working towards providing a comfortable and secure home for their retirement and they feel that the insertion of a group home, with the attendant additional activity, would be incompatible with the quiet enjoyment of their property and would adversely affect their property values, which make up a large portion of their financial worth. On the other hand, representatives of Directions For Mental Health, Inc., an agency devoted to the placement of disabled adults, primarily the mentally ill, consider the White Palace a much needed resource. They recommend the bed increase sought be granted.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be granted licenses to operate two residential group homes for developmentally disabled individuals.
Findings Of Fact On October 22, 1999, the Department issued to Community Opportunities, Inc., a temporary license to operate Skyline ("Skyline" or "Skyline Group Home"), a residential group home for developmentally disabled clients in Pasco County, Florida, which is located in the Department's Suncoast Region. Four months later, in February 2000, the Department issued a standard license to Community Opportunities, Inc. From February 2000 through early August 2002, Skyline Group Home operated under that standard license. In May 2002, the Department investigated an abuse complaint concerning a 21-year-old male resident at the Skyline Group Home who was diagnosed as mentally retarded with Intermittent Explosive Disorder. His past history included incarceration for attempting to stab his father and, while at Skyline, 14 behavior incidents ranging from exposing himself to violent behavior towards staff and other residents at the group home. On or about May 3, 2000, this resident, while a passenger in a van for the group home, took the vehicle's keys from the seat where they were left by a staff person, started the van, ran over the staff person twice, and ran the van into a house and a telephone pole, before being stopped. Following the Department's investigation, the report was classified as verified for inadequate supervision, caretaker present. The investigation referred to in paragraph 2 also found that the Skyline Group Home was inadequately staffed, with employees working for weeks at a time with no days off. At the time of the investigation, the van driver, who was injured in the incident, described in paragraph 2 had not had a day off for almost two months prior to that incident. On August 4, 2000, the Department met with representatives of Community Opportunities, Inc., due to safety issues with the operation of the group home. Following this meeting, on or about August 11, 2000, Skyline's licensure status was changed from standard to conditional. At that time, the Department requested that the facility submit plans of corrective action. On August 28, 2000, the Department investigated an abuse complaint concerning a mentally retarded, female resident of the Skyline Group Home. This resident was found walking on a gravel road with no shoes and dressed only in a nightgown. It was estimated that it would have taken 8 to 10 minutes to walk to the location where the resident was found. This elopement from the group home occurred 3 times in a three-hour period. As a result of the investigation, it was also learned that Skyline Group Home staff members were dropping off residents at school before teachers arrived, thereby leaving the developmentally disabled clients unattended. In addition, the investigation revealed that staff at the Skyline Group Home could not be reached during the day when emergencies or problems with medications arose, staff members failed to document significant events as required, and faxed requests for medication from the school to the group home went unanswered. This report was classified as verified for inadequate supervision and medical neglect. The investigation found systemic problems associated with the group home. Although the Department gave Community Opportunities, Inc., time to correct the problems, the problems were never corrected. As a result of those failed attempts, the Department closed the Skyline Group Home on September 30, 2000. On September 21, 2000, the Department sent a letter to Ernie M. Beal, Jr., Executive Director of Community Opportunities, Inc., notifying him that the license for the Skyline Group Home would not be renewed. Community Opportunities, Inc., did not challenge the Department's proposed action and two months later, the Department issued a Final Order affirming the denial of Community Opportunities, Inc.'s, relicensure. The reasons for nonrenewal of Skyline's license included the facility's failure to maintain adequate staff at the group home; failure to take reasonable precautions to assure that the residents were not harming themselves or others; incidents involving injury to staff; inadequate corrective action plans to address deficiencies; and numerous violations of the licensure standards under Rule Chapter 65B-6, Florida Administrative Code. On or about September 12, 2002, the Department received licensure applications for two developmentally group homes, Skyline Group Home in Dade City, Florida, and Harvill Group Home located in Lithia, Florida, both of which were located in the Department's Suncoast Region. The applications were submitted by Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., and signed by Pamela Beal, Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"). Ernest Beal, Jr., Chief Operating Officer, was listed on both of the applications as the person who would operate and supervise the facilities. Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc. is a non- profit corporation. Ernest M. Beal, Jr., is its president and Pamela Beal is its vice-president, secretary, treasurer, and CEO. The Board of Directors of Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., is comprised of Pamela Beal and Ernest Beal, Jr., and Felicity Lennox, who was also on the Board of Directors of Communities Opportunities, Inc. Ernest M. Beal, Jr., is the president and CEO of PEJUS, Inc., which on January 1, 2000, purchased the assets of Community Opportunities, Inc. PEJUS, Inc., then conveyed its interest in the former Community Opportunities, Inc. to Your Friends & Neighbors, Inc. Qualification documents for Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., were filed with the Secretary of State on or about January 29, 2001, and the corporation was authorized to transact business in Florida on that date. Petitioner's, Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc.'s, corporate office is at the same address as Community Opportunities, Inc., located at 1515 Magnavox Way, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Moreover, when calling Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc.'s phone number, one is greeted by a recorded message which states the names Your Friends & Neighbors, Inc., Community Opportunities. Inc., and PEJUS, Inc. Your Friends & Neighbors, Inc., is an Indiana corporation founded in 1985 by Ethyl Beal and Pamela Beal. Community Opportunities, Inc., is an Indiana corporation owned by Ernest Beal, Jr., which owned the Skyline Group Home in September 2000, when the license for Skyline was not renewed. The two applications for licensure submitted by Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., on September 12, 2002, were almost identical to the application for the Skyline Group Home submitted by Community Opportunities, Inc., in July 1999. There were no significant differences in the 1999 application and the 2002 applications. In fact, the services to be provided, the program description, and the staffing pattern were almost identical. Notwithstanding these similarities, the applications submitted in 2002, proposed to serve clients with developmental disabilities more severe than those served at Skyline Group Home pursuant to the 1999 application. By letter dated October 2, 2002, the Department notified Pamela Beal, CEO of Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc., that the licensure applications had been denied. The notice cited all the reasons the Department did not renew Skyline's license in September 2000. Those reasons included the incident involving the vehicle resulting in injury to staff; neglect of the residents; failure to correct problems through corrective action plans; insufficient staffing ratio; lack of reasonable precautions to ensure residents' safety; failure to ensure timely medical treatment to residents; and failure to properly report injuries. Despite the violations cited in the notice of denial, at the final hearing, the Department clarified that its concern with the subject applications was not with the direct care staff, but with the fact that the proposed model would not meet the needs of the clients with developmental disabilities that Petitioner wanted to serve.
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 confirming the decision not to issue Petitioner's group home licenses for Skyline and Harvill. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela J. Beal 1515 Magnavox Way Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804 Ernie Beal, President Your Friends & Neighbors of Florida, Inc. 4505 Club House Drive Marietta, Georgia 30066 Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 314 Largo, Florida 33778-1630 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
