The Issue The determinative issue in this cause is whether Petitioners "abused" and "neglected" foster children in their care, as those terms are defined in Sections 39.01(2) and 39.01(45), Florida Statutes (2000). As a result of the alleged abusive neglect, two subsequent issues are raised: (1) whether Petitioners' foster home license should be revoked for the reasons as stated in the Administrative Complaint dated July 20, 2001; and (2) whether Respondent's denial of Petitioners' requests to adopt the "M" sibling and to adopt the "T/S" sibling foster children, based primarily upon the allegations in the Administrative Compliant dated July 20, 2001, as explained in a denial letter dated January 18, 2002, was appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying in person and by taped interviews, the documentary materials received in evidence, stipulations by the parties, evidentiary rulings during the final hearing, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are found. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for receiving and approving applications for foster care licenses and for monitoring, regulating, and if necessary, suspending or revoking foster parent licenses pursuant to Section 409.175, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, was the state agency responsible for receiving, evaluating, approving or denying applications for adoption of foster children pursuant to Section 63.062, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 65C-16, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners' Foster Care Licensure History Petitioners are married and are the parents of two biological children. Mrs. Sawyer was reared with foster children and has always desired to become a foster parent. Petitioners were initially licensed by the Agency as foster parents in October of 1986, and six months later on April 20, 1987, Petitioners voluntarily closed their foster home due to Mrs. Sawyer's complications with the pregnancy of their second child. During the above six-month licensed period, Petitioners successfully fostered ten children, the last child was removed by the Agency from the foster home in March 1987. In December 1986, two months after initial licensing, Petitioners were the subject of an abuse report alleging spanking a child. The Agency's investigation concluded that the abuse report was "unfounded,"4 and closure was recommended by the Agency's investigator. On September 7, 1987, the Agency again licensed Petitioners as foster parents. Eight months thereafter, on May 23, 1988, the Agency again closed Petitioners' foster home. On August 10, 1988, three months later, the Agency, for the third time, licensed Petitioners as foster parents. Mrs. Sawyer acknowledged using corporal discipline on a foster child during the 1988 licensure period. As a result of the corporal punishment incident in 1988, the Agency required Petitioners to attended its Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting (MAPP) classes, which Petitioners attended and completed. The 1988 licensure of Petitioners as foster parents was specifically granted for the "T/S" sibling group who, with voluntary permission of their biological parents, had been living with Petitioners for approximately two months before their official placement with Petitioners by the Agency. Since 1988, the Agency has annually renewed Petitioners' foster care license.5 Responding to the requests of the Agency, Petitioners on occasions fostered as many as 16 to 20 foster children. Petitioners' foster home was frequently used by the Agency for unannounced "overnight" foster care, many of which extended into protracted foster care periods. During periods when the Agency's need for foster home beds was pressing, the Agency's rule-of-five was waived by the Agency's District Administrator so that Petitioners could and did house more children.6 The record reflects no evidence of complaints of abuse or any other complaints during the periods the Agency needed and made use of Petitioners' home to foster children. The evidence of record, viewed chronologically, reflects a protracted period of intense investigation of allegations which, if true, were apparently ongoing over a period of months prior to the filing of Abuse Report 2000-198255, the basis of the Agency's intended revocation of Petitioners' foster care license. Petitioners' latest license was issued on August 24, 2000, and was effective until August 24, 2001. This August 24, 2000, foster home license is the subject of the Agency's revocation notice, which states: The revocation is based on the following reasons: Between December 21, 2000 and March 1, 2001, the Department of Children and Families investigated eleven reports of abuse and neglect involving your home. In Florida Abuse Hotline Report 2000-198255[7] it was concluded that there were verified findings of excessive corporal punishment and confinement, bizarre punishment and excessive restraint committed by Cynthia Sawyer towards several foster children in her care. The report also noted several instances of inappropriate physical punishment, which is a violation of the foster parent disciplinary policy. These incidents are considered "an intentional or negligent act materially affecting the health and safety of children in the home or agency" and a violation of the licensing rules promulgated pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes. Section 409.175(8)(b) 1 and 2 Florida Statutes; 65C- 13.010(1)(b)5 Florida Administrative Code. (emphasis added) The Agency's allegations of neglect and abuse revolved around four specific types of disciplinary activities that are alleged to have occurred on or after August 24, 2000, the date the current foster care license was issued, and to have terminated on or before March 1, 2001, the date the Agency removed children from Petitioners' home. The four specific types of disciplinary activities are: (1) excessive corporal punishment and confinement, (2) inappropriate physical punishment, (3) bizarre punishment, and (4) excessive restraints.8 In support of those allegations, the Agency presented the testimonies of several foster children, video- taped interviews of three foster children made in March 2001, approximately one month after removal from Petitioners' home; the testimony of another foster care parent; the testimony of a Guardian Ad Litem; and the testimonies of several of the Agency's employees. Mike Katz, agency employee, prepared the Administrative Complaint but had no personal knowledge of the abuse allegations contained in Abuse Report 2000-198255, which formed the basis for the Administrative Complaint he prepared. Mr. Katz acknowledged that his understanding of the Agency's practice and policy was that "one incident of corporal punishment" did not equate to foster care license revocation. According to Mr. Katz, evaluating corporal punishment allegations requires all factors be taken into consideration and the totality of circumstances be reviewed; the intended result is a fact specific determination for each case of alleged corporal punishment. Kate Kimball's, the Sawyers' family service counselor, testimony was primarily concerned with agency reports dating from December 3, 1996, through the year 2000. Her testimony regarding and relating to matters that occurred prior to December 21, 2000, are not relevant nor material to issues of foster home license denial as stated in the Administrative Complaint that is challenged by Petitioners. However, Ms. Kimball's testimony regarding the Sawyers' life-style during the period she was their case worker is relevant and material to the issue of denial of the Sawyers' application to adopt the "M" children. The record reflects that in 1999, while fostering the "T/S" and the "M" siblings under the Agency's District Administrator's waiver of the rule-of-five policy, Petitioners were given an "Above Satisfactory" evaluation by the assigned foster care case worker, Kim Bryant. Ms. Bryant reported that the Sawyers are "very involved, supportative of the children's extra curricular activities and educational needs; show children much needed attention and affection; children and foster parents seem very fond of each other and there is much improvement with the children educationally and emotionally and they appear to have adjusted well in the home." Ms. Bryant's report is undisputed and credible. One year later, Hotline Report 2000-078274 was filed containing an allegation of medical negligence against Mrs. Sawyer as a result of her attempt to refill a prescribed medication for a foster child in her care after the child had taken all the medication. In this particular instance, the Agency had failed to provided Mrs. Sawyer with the child's medical record when the child was placed in her foster home. This medical negligence allegation was resolved when the case worker assigned to the Sawyers secured from the child's file the physician's prescription refill order. The Hotline Report was closed by the Agency with "No indicators of alleged maltreatment-or abuse/neglect." On June 26, 2000, and after the Sawyers added separate bedrooms and bathrooms for the girls and separate bedrooms and bathrooms for the boys to their home to accommodate 16 children, their case worker, Ms. Kimball, wrote, "It appeared that the Department has continued to utilize their home, as we have had no alternatives." The home study case worker's comments are revealing and reliable. It is reasonable to infer that the Agency was satisfied with the Sawyers' methods of disciplining foster children in their home, when they met the Agency's need for foster beds. However, when the Agency's need for foster beds were apparently met by other resources their prior position of satisfaction with the Sawyers, for reasons not entirely clear from the record, took a sudden 180-degree turn-about from satisfaction to dissatisfaction, within a six-month time period from June 26, 2000, to December 21, 2000. The case worker assigned to the "M" children, Anjanet Stilwell, reported that the Sawyers' foster home was "a wonderful foster home--they were very cooperative and caring." Case worker, Karen Braden, who was in the home twice weekly regarding kids assigned to her, wrote, "Cindy is great! I have no concerns regarding placement of my kids. I truly don't know how she does it!" I find Ms. Stilwell's and Ms. Braden's opinions acceptable and reflective of the Agency's approved satisfactory view of the Sawyers as foster parents for many children who were housed solely by the Agency's waiver of its rule-of-five policy and for its benefit. One foster care referral report regarding the "T/S" children written by case worker Heather Blair was considered at the Adoption Applicant Review Committee (AARC) staffing. In her report, Ms. Blair summarized Psychologist Lisa Gaise's conclusions that: "3 T/S children reported being paddle [sic] and 'the context in which these clear disclosures were made was so natural as to dispel any questions of the veracity of their statements.'" Apparently the AARC staffing considered Ms. Gaise's comments credible in their decision to deny the adoption application. The fact of the matter is that Ms. Blair's statement regarding the "truth" and acceptance of Lisa Gaise's opinion that the child's statement were true, is not accepted for the truth asserted and, therefore, is not credible.9 Bobby Cooper, another agency witness, commenced his investigation of Abuse Report 2000-198255, on December 21, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Cooper's investigation consisted entirely of reviewing reports of other agency investigators. Mr. Cooper had no personal knowledge nor had he personally sought independent collaboration of statements contained in the reports he reviewed. His testimony is not credible. Kate Kimball, the case worker assigned to Petitioners' foster home, often made announced and unannounced visits to Petitioners' foster home, as required by Agency policy. Ms. Kimball was in close and constant contact with the foster children and the foster parents during her visits to the home. Ms. Kimball was required to (1) observe the foster children, speak in confidence with each child individually, immediately report any "signs" of abuse or "suspected abuse," and to (4) cause "removal" of a child or children from abusive foster home situations. Ms. Kimball never requested nor caused removal of a child from Petitioners' foster home during the period of December 21, 2000, through March 2001, the period the abuse reports were allegedly "verified." Detective Christi Esquinaldo was assigned to investigate this case by Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. Her investigation consisted of interviewing foster child L.S., reviewing the abuse reports, and creating a matrix from those reports. The matrix consisted of Detective Esquinaldo's listing the names of children who were alleged to have been subjected to a specific abusive discipline crossed referenced by the names of the children who made the allegations. According to Detective Esquinaldo, L.S. told her that the Sawyers "made children stand in a corner for three to four hours" as punishment, and Lil David was restrained to a chair for "three to four hours." However, during her testimony at the hearing, L.S. denied having made those statements to Detective Esquinaldo. L.S.'s testimony at the final hearing is credible. In closing her investigation, Detective Esquinaldo recommended to the State Attorney's Office the direct filing of a felony charge of Aggravated Child Abuse against the Sawyers. The Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office, citing "numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the children," declined to file any charges against the Sawyers and closed their files on the matter. After reviewing the children's testimonies of record, I am compelled to agree with the Hillsborough County State Attorney Office that the "inconsistencies of the statements of the children" render their collective testimonies unreliable and insufficient to provide a preponderance of evidence necessary to establish a fact. None of the adult witnesses, presented by the Agency, possessed knowledge acquired through collaboration of the children's stories from independent sources and/or their investigations regarding the abuse allegations alleged in the Complaint. The Agency's employees' initial and total acceptance of the children's recollection of time, i.e. as "all day" and "all night," should have, but did not raise reasonable concern regarding each child's ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality and the child's accuracy of recall as well. The children's story-line, that Petitioners forced each of them to walk, to stand in time-outs, to dig holes, to sleep in their beds or do any other activities "all day" or "all night," was testified to as a form of punishment and not discipline for acting up. Accepting as true, accurate, and realistic, their identical versions of four specific experiences from the several children without more does not equate to credible nor collaborative evidence. The testimonies presented by several foster children at this hearing were, at best, confusing, conflicting and contradictory. When asked specific questions about the several forms and methods of discipline, the unanimity of their responses were: stand in the corner "all night," dig holes "all day," walk in circles "all day," and sleep in the bed "all day." The fact that the children's testimonies clustered in a certain position (sibling groups wanting to stay together as a group and those sibling groups wanting to be moved to another foster home as a group gave almost identical answers to questions relating to specific disciplines) does not mean nor imply that their testimonies were necessarily accurate, realistic, or true. In fact, the record reflects that several of the testimonies initially given by the children to the Agency were in conflict with their testimonies subsequently given to the Agency representatives and testimony given at the final hearing. Considering the children's testimonies in the context of the children's ages; the children's physical sizes; the physical improbability of a small child actually squatting, with knees bent, against a wall with both arms held out in front of the body or held out to the sides of their bodies all day; and their description of time as "all day" and "all-night," rendered their collective testimonies unrealistic, unreliable and, therefore, not credible. Steve Barber, Petitioners' pastor and the one who has interfaced with the foster children, based upon his experience as a former high school football coach, gave undisputed testimony that the physical size and stature of the young children made it physically impossible for any of them to "stand, squat, dig or walk in circles, all day." Based upon the testimony of Mr. Barber and the unrealistic testimonies of the several children, Respondent has failed to prove that Petitioners committed "excesses" in administering policy discipline, by imposing time-outs, separation from other children, grounding, loss of privileges, and by assigning other chores. I find that the cumulative testimonies of the foster children found in the Agency reports in evidence and of those children who testified at the final hearing unreliable, inconsistent, devoid of details, physically impossible in most instances and, therefore, insufficient to establish by a preponderance that the Sawyers subjected them to: (1) excessive corporal punishment and confinement, (2) inappropriate physical punishment, (3) bizarre punishment, and (4) use of excessive restraints as punishment as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. Of the three video-taped interviews reviewed by the undersigned, the interview of D.I. revealed a reliable and detailed account of the daily life and activities of the foster children in the Sawyers' home from an articulate child with personal knowledge and accurate recall of events. First, D.I. was in the Sawyers' foster care for a period of seven months. Second, D.I. appeared to be bright, intelligent, articulate, straight-forward, and he was definite and clear in his responses to questions asked by the Agency's spokesperson. Third, D.I.'s memory of details was complete, uncompromising, realistic, and reasonable. Fourth, D.I. acknowledged that his possibility of being reunited with his biological mother was nonexistent, and he would probably be in foster care until his majority, if not adopted, preferably by the Sawyers. Fifth, he is familiar with and aware of foster children, individually and as sibling groups "working the foster care system for their desired ends by telling stories." During his seven months' stay in foster care with the Sawyers, D.I. testified that he never saw nor was he made aware by other children of any child punished by the Sawyers in the form of being forced to stand in time-out "all day," forced to dig holes "all night," or forced to walk in circles "all day." D.I. knew that Lil L.S. pooped in her pants and smeared the poop over the walls of the foster care residence. He knows this because he was one of the older children who volunteered to clean the poop off the walls; he remembers these incidents because the walls had "white spots" where the cleaning solutions were used. He also remembered because Mrs. Sawyer would put white powder on the bedroom floor leading from Lil L.S.'s room to other parts of the house. In the morning when Lil L.S. was awaken and asked about poop on the walls, she would blame other children, but her foot prints would prove contradiction of the story of not having gotten out of bed during the night. According to D.I., Lil L.S. was never "hosed down outside" the house after pooping on herself. Each time Lil L.S. pooped on herself, Mrs. Cindy would require her to go into her bathroom10 and bathe herself. When asked about household chores and work around the house as a form of punishment, D.I. answered that older children would be offered the opportunity to "work outside" with Mr. Sawyer on "things around the house," only if that child wanted to work outside. If not, the child was given the option to stay outside and play or to go inside and watch T.V., play games, or do other things. D.I. was emphatic that the opportunity to do other things was made available to each child only after that child completed his or her homework. Homework was always first, and some children got in trouble because of not doing or completing their homework. According to D.I., the younger children who played outside would customarily play in the round-about driveway, the yard, and on the Jungle Jim play set. The older children would customarily do other things. D.I.'s examples of "doing things around the house" were: helping Mr. Sawyer work on his truck; putting together and/or repairing the Jungle Jim swing-slide play set; helping to dig a trench line to lay pipe for the new water heater connection; tending to and caring for the animals; planting trees and stuff; and painting and building additional bathrooms and bedrooms onto the house. According to D.I., all outside activities were made available to any children who wished to participate in them instead of playing among themselves. When asked, D.I. was empathic in his answer that no child, "as a form of punishment," was forced to assist Mr. Sawyer in "doing things around the house," if they wanted to help they could, if not, then other activities were available and that no child was handcuffed nor had he seen any (metal) handcuffs at the Sawyers' house, save his pair of red plastic toy handcuffs that came with a toy set the Sawyers gave him. D.I., from observation, knew Lil David to be self-mutilating.11 D.I. recalls that "Lil David would sometimes just pick himself to make himself bleed." During his seven-month stay and on more than one occasion, in passing, D.I. would see Lil David in bed at night with velcro restraints on his wrists and the bed to stop him from picking himself and making himself bleed. "Mrs. Cindy did this to keep Lil David from picking himself when he was asleep."12 Regarding meal times and meals at Mrs. Cindy's, D.I. stated that all the children ate the same meal at the same time "cause there was so many of us and Mrs. Cindy had no time for separate meals and we [older children] helped to feed the young children, we did help." When asked about peanut butter sandwiches as a form of punishment, D.I. responded, "Those children who had been bad or were in time-out at mealtime were separated from the other children and given peanut butter sandwiches to eat while in their time-outs. But Mrs. Cindy would say to them 'say you are sorry and you can join us.'" He never saw nor knew of a child in time-out (against the wall) for "hours." The longest time-out he could recall was about "20 minutes," and that was because the child was "acting up" in the time-out and had additional time added to the time-out. D.I. was familiar with the "T/S" and (other) siblings. He knew from personal experience in foster care that older siblings would instruct their younger siblings on all matters: what to say, when to say it, how to act, and how to act up. D.I. was personally familiar with "foster homes" and the means and methods of "getting out of one" and "staying together" as a sibling group and getting into another as a group. When asked about "corporal punishment" i.e. spanking with a wooden paddle and/or slapping with hands, D.I. testified that during his seven-month stay, he knew of no child to have gotten spanked with a wood paddle. "I never saw a wood paddle." Regarding "getting slapped by Mrs. Cindy" as punishment, D.I. answered that Ms. Cindy would "tap" you on the back of the head, butt, or shoulder "to get your attention, like if she was talking to you and you were watching T.V. and not answering her but she never slapped any of us for punishment." This method of getting one child's attention by touching is reasonable when considered in the context of the Agency's waiver of its rule-of- five policy so as to place as many as 16 to 20 children in the Sawyers' foster care home. 13 The video testimony of D.I. is accurate, detailed, reasonable, realistic, based upon his personal knowledge, undisputed and, therefore, credible. Based in part upon the video testimony of D.I., Respondent has failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the Sawyers subjected a foster child in their care to: (1) excessive corporal punishment and confinement, (2) inappropriate physical punishment, (3) bizarre punishment, and (4) use of excessive restraints for the time period alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Sawyers' admitted use of velcro restraints on Lil David was neither excessive, punitive nor disciplinary, but rather was for Lil David's protection from harming himself. The Sawyers' used velcro restraints on Lil David during the day only when he was in time-out and sitting in a small rocking chair and during the night when he was put to bed. The evidence of record by testimonies of virtually every witnesses who knew Lil David knew him to be a self-mutilator. The use of restraints is an acceptable, preventative method for protection in this situation. The record contains no evidence that the Agency provided the Sawyers with an evaluation report of Lil David upon his placement nor during his stay within their foster home. Lil David's medical report would have advised the Sawyers of Lil David's self-mutilation problem. It is a reasonable assumption that had the Agency provided Lil David's medical records, the Sawyers would have been alerted to Lil David's self-mutilation problem and would have had the benefit of the Agency's instructions regarding care and protection for Lil David's problem of self-mutilation. The Sawyers' admitted use of velcro restraints reflects a caring and sincere effort of the foster parents to protect the child from hurting himself. In the absence of information from the Agency regarding Lil David's condition, the Sawyers' use of an acceptable, safe and preventative method of care for this particular problem reflects their efforts to comply with the "spirit" of the rules regarding foster parent responsibilities. The record contains no evidence that the Sawyers' use of velcro restraints to prevent Lil David's self- mutilation was "willfully harmful" or "neglect" or an "abusive" act of intentional punishment. Bobby Cooper's, child protection investigator, reported findings and conclusions were based entirely upon statements provided by individuals he interviewed. The record contains no evidence of collaboration to substantiate testimonies of the children. Therefore, Mr. Cooper's testimony is hearsay without support and therefore, not credible. Finally, consideration is given to what is not in evidence. First, the record in this case contains no evidence of a child alleged to have suffered ongoing neglect and abuse in the form of excessive, bizarre,14 and inappropriate punishment, or to have borne body marks or bruises resulting from the alleged treatment by the Sawyers. Second, the record in this case contains no evidence of a Sawyer-housed foster child to have suffered "physical, mental or emotional injury" as the result of the alleged negligent and abusive treatment. Third, the record contains no evidence from which it could be inferred that a foster child removed from Petitioners' home suffered a "discernible and substantial impairment in the ability to function within the normal range of performance and behavior" as a direct result of the alleged abusive discipline.15 The evidence of record supports a reasonable conclusion that Mrs. Sawyer was proactive in seeking the assistance of local politicians and state officials to accomplish her apparent goal of responsive and exceptional services from the Department for her foster children. It is undisputed that the Sawyers, with the advice and consent of the Department, had more foster children than was reasonable to expect only two adults to provide a minimal of custodial care. Permitting the Sawyers to house as many as 16 to 20 foster children, plus their two biological children, at any point in time, was permissive and self serving by the Department and was overreaching acceptance by the Sawyers. It is a reasonable inference that in this case both the Department and the Sawyers engaged in a mutual course of conduct to satisfy their respective needs and desires. When the mutually beneficial relationship came to a close, a reversal of opinions and recommendations from the Department regarding the Sawyers occurred. The Sawyers, who had been described by the Department as "unbelievable foster parents," became merely unbelievable when confronted with and evaluated by conflicting stories of 14 foster children removed from their home. Denial of Adoption Application for the M sibling group Turning to evidence in the record regarding the denial of Petitioners' application to adopt the four "M" siblings, the fact that some animosity existed between Ms. Gains16 and Mrs. Sawyer, became readily apparent during Ms. Gains' testimony. The existence of animosity was further confirmed by Ms. Gains' detailed chronology of alleged abusive acts and omissions by Mrs. Sawyer over a period in excess of one year. When answering questions asked by the Agency's representative regarding Ms. Gains' statements and opinion of Mrs. Sawyer, D.I. answered: "She [sic] said handcuffs and other things about Mrs. Cindy so as to get kids moved out of Mrs. Cindy's house to her house." Based upon D.I. testimony above, Ms. Gains' testimony given at the hearing and her written report in evidence is biased and unreliable. In the evaluation and review of Petitioners' adoption request, Respondent appropriately engaged in a holistic evaluation of all abuse reports filed, investigative reports, personal opinions, and comments from Department employees, community members and other foster parents, dating from as early as 1986 to the date of the adoption denial. Respondent, in reevaluation of Petitioners' adoption request for the "M" children, should hereinafter be guided by the Findings of Fact herein that allegations of excessive discipline as contained in the Administrative Compliant herein were not proven by the testimonies of the Agency's witnesses and documentary evidence. Therefore, allegations found in Abuse Report 2000-198255 reported or alleged to have occurred within the time period of December 21, 2000, through March 1, 2001, shall not be considered by the Agency in its reevaluation of the Sawyers' application to adopt the "M" siblings; being mindful that the "M" siblings' desire to be adopted by the Sawyers is in the "M" child(ren)'s best interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting renewal of Petitioners' Foster Care License. It is further RECOMMENDED, that in accord with the expressed desires of the "M" siblings to be adopted by Petitioners, that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioners' application to adopt the "M" siblings. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should revoke Respondents' foster home license for use of corporal punishment of a foster child in violation of Section 409.175(8), Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-13.010. (Citations to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2001), and citations to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating foster homes in Florida. Respondents are licensed foster parents. On November 1, 2001, Petitioner's Child Protection Team received an abuse report alleging that Respondent, Yvonne Lindsay, had administered corporal punishment to a foster child under Mrs. Lindsay's care and identified in the record as D.J. D.J. was born on May 6, 1997. D.J. urinated in the van owned by Respondents. D.J. urinated in the van regularly. Mrs. Lindsay became angry and grabbed D.J. forcefully by the arm. Mrs. Lindsay testified that she did not spank D.J. Mrs. Lindsay's denial concerning corporal punishment is neither credible nor persuasive. On November 2, 2001, members of the Child Protection Team examined D.J. at one of their offices. One team member who observed D.J. is an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP). The ARNP has specialized in family practice since 1980 and was the supervising nurse practitioner in the examining room when other members of the Child Protection Team examined D.J. The ARNP observed fresh red contusions on D.J.'s back as well as numerous healed lesions on D.J.'s buttocks from old injuries. The ARNP observed D.J. herself and supervised the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that Mrs. Lindsay used corporal punishment against one of her foster children in violation of Section 409.175 and Rule 65C-13.010 and revoking Respondents' foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 J. William Masters, Esquire 2901 Curry Ford Road, Suite 207 Orlando, Florida 32806 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 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should Petitioners' application for family foster home license be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: The Department is the agency in the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of family foster homes. Linda Patterson and Robert Patterson (Pattersons), a married couple, applied for licensure as a family foster home. The Pattersons completed the initial training for prospective foster parents in March of 1995. The Department completed a home study on the Pattersons. The results of the home study and background information on the Pattersons, including the Pattersons tenure as foster parents in Connecticut, were considered by the Department before denying the Pattersons' application for licensure as a family foster home for children. On August 24, 1994, the Department issued Notice Of Denial to the Patterson which in pertinent part provides: This letter provides notice to you that your application for a family foster home license is denied, based on Section 409.175(8)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10M-6.023, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The reasons for this denial are: Mr. Patterson has been charged with numerous law violations in the past. Although none of the law violations auto- matically disqualifies him from fostering, they do reflect a lack of judgment needed to provide adequate care for foster children, indicating an inability to comply with Rule 10-6.023(e). Your home was investigated in August of 1992 because of allegations of sexual abuse on your 18 year old adopted daughter. You admitted inappropriate contact with this child. As a result of this investigation your license was limited, and your home was approved only for males, ages 5 to 11. In April of 1993, your marital coun- selor stated that you have difficulty setting limits with sexuality, and recommended against the placement of any child with a known history of sexual acting out, or approaching puberty. This recommendation was made shortly after an incident of child on child sexual abuse in your home. In September of 1993, a clinical psychologist evaluated you. He stated that Mr. Patterson's ability to control his impulses is "probably" satisfactory, but should not be tested with sexually active adolescent females. He also opined that your family might have some difficulty dealing with sexually abused and acting out children without professional guidance. All of these incidents indicate an inability to comply with Rule 10M-6.023(1)(e), particularly in view of the fact that approxi- mately 85 percent of our foster children fall into the categories of children that should not be placed with Mr. Patterson. Robert Patterson admitted to several law violation between 1960 and 1980. However, most of these violations were misdemeanors and committed while he was a juvenile. There was one felony violation (car theft) by Robert Patterson while he was a juvenile. Robert Patterson admitted that in 1980 he was charged with larceny concerning an alleged fraudulent claim for unemployment compensation to which he pled nolo contendere. Notwithstanding that he pled nolo contendere to the charge, Robert Patterson contended that the unemployment compensation claim was a legal claim. There was no evidence of any further law violations after the nolo contendere plea in 1980. The Pattersons were licensed in Connecticut as foster parents for approximately 10 years. During the time the Pattersons were licensed as a foster home in Connecticut the Patterson home was investigated because of a complaint alleging sexual abuse of a female foster child in the Pattersons' home. Although there was no finding of sexual abuse of this female, Robert Patterson admitted to having unintentionally touched the female's breast and buttocks while they were wrestling. There was another incident where this same female foster child, while inebriated, rubbed Robert Patterson' penis several times. Robert Patterson testified that he felt sexually attracted to this female child, but that he never acted on those feelings. The female child that was the subject of the abuse complaint was not removed from the Pattersons' home, and subsequently the State of Connecticut allowed the Pattersons to adopt this child. After this investigation, the Pattersons requested that their foster care home license be limited to males, ages 5 years to 11 years. This limitation on placement was requested by the Patterson because they felt inadequate to cope with sexually acting out or sexually abused children. The Paterson's marriage counselor in Connecticut advised the Connecticut DCF (the equivalent of Florida DHRS) that the Pattersons had difficulty setting limits with sexuality, and recommended against placement of any child in the Pattersons' home with a known history of sexual acting out, or approaching puberty. Many foster children are victims of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation which causes these foster children to behavior inappropriately. Often the Department is unaware of prior abuse or the resultant behavior when a child is placed in a foster home. A foster parent's ability to deal appropriately with sexually abused and sexually acting out children is a very important attribute, particularly given the number of children in foster care with these difficulties. The Pattersons requested to be licensed for placement of males only, ages 5 years to 11 years. The Department has licensed foster homes with age and sex restrictions on placements. However, the Department attempts to avoid licensing homes with such restrictions. Such restrictions on placement interfere with the Department's statutory duty to keep siblings together, and with the goal of attempting to avoid moving children from foster home to foster home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying the Petitioners licensure as a family foster home. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of September, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 23rd day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-1567 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department in this case. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioners elected not to file any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 - 19 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Bldg. 2, Room 204X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Room 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-07001 Robert and Linda Patterson 8653 Indian Ridge Way Lakeland, Florida 33809 M. Elizabeth Wall, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 200 North Kentucky Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33801
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license to operate a family foster home should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating foster home licenses in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Geraldine H. Daniels, operated a licensed foster care home at 2625 Northwest Third Street, Pompano Beach, Florida, from November 1994 until September 1998. At all times during such period the Respondent held a valid foster care license that expired on or about November 7, 1998. The Respondent sought to renew the foster care license but was denied by the Petitioner. The denial was timely challenged and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. Foster home parents receive a "board rate" for children placed in their homes. This rate is to provide financial assistance to the foster home parent so that the child's needs may be met. A minor child known in this record as W.S. was placed in the Respondent's care in January 1998. The Respondent was paid the board rate for W.S. for the months of January through June 1998. During the same period of time, the Respondent collected SSI benefits for the child W.S. from the Social Security Administration. Such payments totaled $2,964. A second minor, P.H., was placed in the Respondent's foster care home in January 1998. The Respondent was paid the Department board rate for P.H. for January through September 1998. The Respondent applied for and received SSI benefits for P.H. beginning in July 1998. Although the Department paid the Respondent the monthly board rate for the minor, she collected the additional sums from SSI through December 1998. In August 1998 the Department notified the Respondent that she was not allowed to collect SSI benefits for children in her care. Subsequent to the notice, the Respondent continued to accept SSI benefits for P.H. The Department serves as the legal custodian for the children within the foster care program. As such, it is entitled to the SSI benefits for children within the system. Foster parents are entitled to the board rate that is established by the Department's uniform rate for dependent children. The Respondent made reimbursements to the Department after her home was closed in September 1998 due to the alleged fraudulent activity and lack of interaction with the children placed in the home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order denying the Respondent's request for renewal of the foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Guller, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 502 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Geraldine H. Daniels 2625 Northwest Third Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Virginia Daire, 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 Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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.
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 denial of Respondent's re-licensure application as a Foster Care Home for the reasons stated in the Department's denial letter of October 30, 2000, was appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary materials received in evidence and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are found: Under Section 409.175, Florida Statutes (2001), the Department of Children and Family Services is the State Agency responsible for evaluating, qualifying, licensing, and regulating family foster care homes. Petitioner, a single male, previously employed with an abused children agency in Broward County, Florida, was granted a foster care parent license by the DCF's Foster Care Licensing unit effective August 10, 1999, through November 10, 1999. A second child specific foster home license for G.K. was issued to Petitioner, effective from March 3, 2000, through August 10, 2000. DCF takes the position that Petitioner is not eligible for re-licensure as a family foster home primarily because he exhibited "poor judgment" relative to a single medical treatment, taking the temperature of an eleven-year-old male foster child through his rectum during the month of August 2000. DCF further alleges that Petitioner has willfully violated specific statutes and rules relating to the conduct and maintenance of the foster home. Those alleged violations are specified in the licensure denial letter dated October 30, 2000, from the DCF to Petitioner. Nicara Daniels is a foster care licensing unit worker with the DCF since November 1999. Ms. Daniels had on-the-job- training and some Professional Development Center Training for new employees. In the licensing unit, Ms. Daniels had training in physical abuse, sexual abuse, drug abuse, and emotional abuse toward children. The DCF used Ms. Daniels to provide testimony regarding each violation as they appeared in the letter of denial. Herein below the allegations are chronologically addressed. Medication and cooking wines in Petitioner's bathroom. On or about July 31, 2000, a period when Petitioner was licensed, Ms. Daniels, Child Protection Investigator assigned Petitioner, made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's home during a period when Petitioner was medicating himself. During her walk through Petitioner's bedroom she entered his bathroom and saw Petitioner's medication for his diabetes on the bathroom shelf along with several bottles of cooking wines. Ms. Daniels acknowledged that she observed the cooking wines in the bathroom. Along with bottles of medication she also observed the lock box in which Petitioner kept his medications and cooking wines when not in use. The door to Petitioner's bedroom and bathroom each had operative locks on them. Ms. Daniels knew that Petitioner took medication for his diabetic condition prior to this inspection and she acknowledged having no experience with the use of cooking wines. Rule 65C-13.011(14)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, requires all medication, poisonous chemicals, and cleaning materials to be in a locked place and inaccessible to children, and that alcoholic beverages should be stored out of the reach of small children; with the recommendation that these beverages be kept in a locked place. Ms. Daniels admitted that for the children, all of whom were 11 years or older, to have access to the medication or cooking wines, they must enter the bedroom, go into the bathroom and open the lock box. There is no evidence presented of any foster care child having access to Petitioner's bedroom, bathroom or the locked medicine box at any time. In making the foregoing finding, I have considered Ms. Daniel's testimony that she knew Petitioner was on medication. Ms. Daniels, however, never questioned the children whether they entered or attempted to enter Petitioner's bedroom at any time when he was not present. I find the mere presence of medications and cooking wines in Petitioner's bathroom, absent other evidence, is not a violation of the cited rule. John Snider in Petitioner's Foster Care home. Ms. Daniels testified that during an early morning visit on an unspecified date in July of 2000, she observed a young man, John Snider, in Petitioner's home. After she advised Mr. Snider had to be screened, Petitioner followed the DCF's process and a screening application for Mr. Snider was submitted to the Department. The Department screened and cleared Mr. Snider and advised Petitioner and Mr. Snider by letter on August 21, 2000. Rule 65C-13.010(4)(g), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the foster care parent notify the department of the presence of such person. Rule 65C-13.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires screening for "all persons that provide respite care in the . . . home on an overnight basis must be screened." Rule 65C-13.009(6)(a)5., Florida Administrative Code, requires a criminal records check for "all persons 18 years and older residing in the . . . home." Petitioner, during a telephone conversation with Ms. Daniels on July 31, 2000, informed her that Broward Juvenile Justice placed Mr. Snider in his home on July 27, 2000. It is Ms. Daniels' opinion that a four-day period between entry and notifying DCF is not reasonable notification. This "unreasonable" delay formed the basis for violation of the cited rule, notwithstanding the particular circumstances. Rule 65C-13.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, which requires "all persons that provide respite care . . . must be screened.” I find Ms. Daniels' opinion that four days is not "reasonable" notification not based upon any protocol, policy or rule of the DCF. In making the foregoing finding, I have considered the following. Petitioner informed Ms. Daniels by telephone that there were matters to discuss; however, the discussion took place four days later when Ms. Daniels was available. The Department of Juvenile Justice for Broward County placed Mr. Snider in Petitioner's home. After submitting an application, Mr. Snider was screened and cleared by the DCF. Considering the evidence as a whole, I find Mr. Snider's presence in Petitioner's home, under authority of the Broward County Juvenile Justice unit, and with telephonic notice to the DCF's licensing unit worker four days after entry into the home is not unreasonable, under the circumstances. Home Department's placing of T.J. in Petitioner's Foster Sometime during the first week of August 2000, Robert Mistretta, Department's child protection investigator and T.J.'s initial case worker, removed T.J. from his family and sought overnight foster care for him. Mr. Mistretta, aware of T.J.'s family situation, his medical, physical, emotional, and sexually abusive history sought a foster care home with those factors in mind. The Department's placement unit instructed him to take T.J. to Petitioner's home for an overnight stay. Mr. Mistretta took T.J. to Petitioner's home with the intention of an overnight stay and reassessment of the situation the following morning. After discussion with Petitioner of T.J.'s need for an overnight stay, Petitioner agreed. Mr. Mistretta chose not to provide Petitioner with information regarding T.J.'s medical, social, physical, emotional, or abusive family history. However, Mistretta gave Petitioner the DCF's emergency pager phone number [570-3081] for use during non-working hours and for emergencies should the need arise. Rectal Temperature Taking What had begun as an overnight stay resulted in a permanent placement and on or about August 6 or 7, 2000, T.J. became ill. His illness began during the day and continuing into the night. According to Petitioner, T.J. exhibited symptoms of a cold or flu, including fever, chills and headache. During the night, he was restless, tossing and turning in his sleep. Petitioner, having no medical history on T.J., became concerned about T.J.'s condition. He made several calls to the Department's emergency pager number [570-3081] provided him by Bob Mistretta, without success. Petitioner then attempted to contact Dr. Stuart Grant, a pediatrician, to no avail. Petitioner thereafter attempted to use his MAPP training first aid guide provided by the Department, but found those instructions unclear. Petitioner then sought information concerning fever and temperature taking from the internet. During the night while T.J. was asleep, Petitioner used a rectal thermometer to take T.J.'s temperature, causing him to awaken suddenly, somewhat startled. Petitioner talked with T.J., explained his concerns with his condition and the reason for taking T.J.'s temperature in that fashion. T.J. responded in a positive manner and went back to sleep. The following morning, Petitioner contacted Mistretta and explained what had happened with T.J. the night before. Mistretta took T.J. aside and privately inquired if he understood "good" touching from and "bad" touching. T.J. stated he understood the difference. When asked about Petitioner's manner of touching him while taking his temperature during the night, T.J. affirmed that Petitioner's touching was a "good" touch and not a "bad" touch. Mistretta, based upon his experience working with children who had suffered abuse, accepted T.J.'s response as true. Satisfied that no "bad" touching occurred during the rectal temperature taking process, Mistretta reported the incident to his supervisor, including his conclusion that nothing sexually or abusive had occurred and concluded his report in part as follows: "This case is closed with no indicators. There is no maltreatment that addressed a bad choice of judgment by a caretaker. There are licensing [unit] concerns regarding Mr. Marlowe's choice to use a rectal thermometer on an 11 year old child." (Emphasis Added) Mr. Mistretta testified that his understanding of the sequence of events the night T.J. was ill were: T.J. was running a high fever and had trouble falling asleep. Petitioner tried cold cloths to reduce the fever that, according to Petitioner's monitoring, was getting too high. Since T.J. was having trouble sleeping and once he did sleep, Petitioner thought a rectal thermometer would be best to try not to awaken him, Petitioner chose to use that form of temperature taking. T.J. reacted with a little bit of pain. Based on Petitioner's history of dealing with sexually abused kids, that reaction is not normal. When Petitioner talked with him about what happened, T.J. disclosed his history to Petitioner. In the process of making the decision as to the appropriate treatment, Petitioner consulted with a Johnson and Johnson book and several medical web sites. The documents from the medical web sites were subsequently provided by Petitioner. I find Mr. Mistretta's testimony credible regarding his conversation with Petitioner immediately after the T.J.'s incident. Following the above, Ms. Mistretta, in addition to his duty as T.J.'s caseworker, was also assigned by his supervisor to investigate a hotline abuse report. Mr. Mistretta investigated the alleged abuse narrative report and found no indication of maltreatment. He recommended the hotline abuse report be closed. Upon being presented with the hotline abuse report narrative with suggestions and allegations of sexual abuse, Mr. Mistretta testified: "The information generated in this narrative in the reporter page that has reporter information states that the CPI, Robert Mistretta, told reporter about allegations. So the source of this report is me. The reporters made their own clarifications, answered their own questions regarding some things instead of calling me back to clarity, talked amongst themselves, found out that they didn't like what happened, and some of the narrative is not true. It is blown out of the water, if you would. The narrative was started by a report. When Mr. Marlowe talked to me, I talked to somebody who talked to somebody, who talked to somebody. The next thing you know we have sexual abuse. The narrative is not true. I did not agree with the removal of T.J. (Emphasis Added) I find Mr. Mistretta's testimony on this issue to be consistent and credible. In making the foregoing finding, I have considered the testimony of the DCF's other witnesses, none of whom had personal knowledge of the abuse report contents. However, Mr. Mistretta is the only witness with personal knowledge of events acquired in his positions as T.J.'s initial caseworker, his placement agent, the interviewer of T.J. and Petitioner, and the originator of the initial report. I have considered the fact that this incident occurred during the week of August 6-12, 2000. Petitioner's license expired on August 10, 2000. However, the DCF did not remove T.J. from Petitioner's home until September 6, 2000, almost a month later. I have also considered Ms. Daniels' testimony that during Petitioner's unlicensed period, DCF's placement unit continued to place children in Petitioner's home. I have also considered the deposition of Dr. Patricia Buck, M.D., pediatrician and Child Protection Team member for District 14 [Polk, Highland and Hardee counties], who was qualified as an expert in pediatrics and child abuse. After her review of documents provided by DCF and given the circumstances by DCF's counsel and Petitioner, Dr. Buck opined that use of a rectal thermometer would not have been her recommendation, had she been the care provider. According to Dr. Buck, anal temperature taking as a medical procedure is not abuse. Adding that the more medical history one has on a patient, the less likely a mistake in patient treatment. The evidence as a whole, including Mistretta's testimony and Dr. Buck's opinion, is persuasive as it relates to the issue of the circumstances and the "appropriateness" of the rectal temperature taking procedure. Accordingly, the testimony of Ms. Daniels, the licensing unit informs placement and other Department units of those parents who were licensed, parents who were not licensed or parents whose licenses had expired. She recalled attending the staffing meeting regarding the T.J. temperature incident and recalled informing staff that Petitioner was not a licensed foster care home after August 10, 2000. According to Ms. Daniels, placing children in a non-licensed home is not permissible. However, its her testimony that in this case, DCF's placement unit placed children in Petitioner's home during a period of time he was not licensed, and during the time T.J. was in Petitioner's home because of [DCF] "it being in a crisis situation with the number of homes we had." In making this finding, I have considered both the DCF's need for foster care beds and its concern for the safety of foster care children. I have also considered the DCF's use of Petitioner's home when they were "in a crisis situation with the number of homes we had." Screening of Ms. Scott Regarding the screening of Ms. Scott, Ms. Daniels testified Petitioner informed her that the screening application papers for Ms. Scott were submitted to the Department and had apparently come up missing. Ms. Daniels acknowledged that she had no evidence to support her conclusion that Ms. Scott was a respite sitter for Petitioner's foster care children; that she had never checked with the DCF to ascertain whether or not Ms. Scott had been screened. Not inquiring whether Ms. Scott had been screened renders Ms. Daniels' testimony questionable. I find Ms. Daniel's testimony regarding Petitioner's failure to provide the Department with Ms. Scott's application for screening not credible. Unwillingness to Provide Information on Mary Poe At some unspecified date, Ms. Daniels recalled she had a conversation with Petitioner regarding his next door neighbor, Ms. Poe, someone who would "check" on the foster children from time to time when Petitioner was late returning from work. Ms. Daniels did not recall if Ms. Poe entered Petitioner's home or gave the key to the children to enter in the home on days he was late returning from work. Ms. Daniels recalled only that, Petitioner's attitude regarding screening Ms. Poe was "uncooperative" and "defiant." During cross-examination Ms. Daniels could not recall the conversation with Petitioner when she was informed that Petitioner's condominium covenants required the manager to have a key to his apartment in case of emergencies. She did recall that Petitioner told her Ms. Poe was the mother of the condominium manager. Ms. Daniels recalled when she voiced concern with the situation Petitioner retrieved his key from Ms. Poe and returned it to the condominium manager for pick up by the children when they returned from school. I find Ms. Daniel's testimony regarding Petitioner's unwillingness to provide information concerning Mary Poe evasive, inconsistent and not credible. In making the foregone finding, I have considered Ms. Daniel's inability to recall facts, dates, times, places, regarding the matter to which she testified. I have considered the fact that Petitioner, when Ms. Daniels voiced concern, corrected the situation by removing the key from Ms. Poe's possession, thereby removing the need for screening by the Department. I have also considered Ms. Daniels' inability to recall facts regarding an incident the DCF considered an intentional refusal by Petitioner to "cooperate" and "communicate" with Department's staff. Confidentiality in Keeping a Life Book on Foster Care Children Ms. Daniels testified that Petitioner informed her the foster care children had a computer life book (photo album) website. After being directed to the website by Petitioner and after viewing the website, Ms. Daniels concluded Petitioner had "released" the names and photos of the foster children on the websites. Without providing a rational basis, she testified that keeping required foster child life books in an electronic format is, in and of itself, inappropriate. She further testified that placing the names and photos on the web site violated DCF's rule of confidentiality. Rule 65C.010(1)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code, requires the foster care parent to maintain the children's records which ensures confidentiality for the child and the biological parents. Petitioner maintained that each child made an individual and personal decision to use the computers he made available in his home. To his knowledge each child placed his personal information, name, foster care status, photos, etc., on the web sites during chats and exchange of information with others users in various chat-room conversations. Ms. Daniels never inquired of the foster children whose names and status were found on the book of life web sites to ascertain whether they or Petitioner placed personal information on the web site. I find her testimony on this issue to be questionable, but reliable. In making the foregoing findings, I have considered Ms. Daniels' testimony and the absence of evidence in support thereof. I find Petitioner's testimony that he never divulged any confidential information on the web sites regarding foster children in his care credible, but not persuasive. As the custodial parent, Petitioner has the ultimate responsibility to maintain and protect the confidentiality of the children in his care and under his supervision. Permitting children of divulge personal/confidential and potentially endangering information on the web site is a breach of Petitioner's parental responsibility. Removal of G.K. from medication prescribed by a Doctor DCF alleged that Petitioner removed G.K. from prescribed medication in violation of Rule 65C-13.010(1)(b)7.a, Florida Administrative Code, which imposes on the foster parent the responsibility for dispensing the medication as prescribed by the physician and recording the exact amount prescribed. In support of this allegation, the Department offered the testimony of Ms. Daniels. Ms. Daniels, by her admission, had no personal knowledge regarding G.K. and Petitioner's actions with G.K.'s medication. Her testimony was based upon what she had previously read in the file prepared by Stephanie Gardner, DCF's Representative and Petitioner's caseworker before the case reassignment to Ms. Daniels. When Ms. Daniels initially inquired of Petitioner about G.K.'s medication, he informed her that before he discontinued G.K.'s medication, he consulted with a nurse who in turn consulted with the prescribing doctor about the matter. Based on the response received from this consultation he discontinued G.K.'s psychotropic medication. Ms. Daniels based her conclusion of unauthorized discontinuance of medication on her conversations with Ray Mallette, a Department mental health counselor. In his letter to Petitioner, Mr. Mallette stated, in pertinent part: "To my knowledge, G.K. was not taking any psychotropic medication while under my care. Treatment was terminated in June of 1999, by mutual agreement, as no further care needed." Ms. Daniels testified that during her conversations with Mr. Mallette she recalled his stating that he did not authorize discontinuation of G.K.'s medication. Ms. Daniels could not state with any certainty if Mr. Mallette's use of the term "medication" included psychotropic medications or other medications. Petitioner provided Ms. Daniels the name of the Broward County physician with whom Petitioner had conferred through his nurse and who authorized taking G.K. off medication. There is no evidence that Ms. Daniels attempted to verify whether the medical persons provided by Petitioner had given instructions to take G.K. off psychotropic medications. I find Ms. Daniels' testimony on the issue of G.K.'s medication to be incomplete, confused and, not creditable. In making the foregoing finding, I have considered Mr. Mallette's letter reflecting that he is not a medical doctor or dentist; therefore, he cannot prescribe nor discontinue a prescribed medication to a patient. I. Use of profanity and general unwillingness to work cooperatively with the Department Rule 65C-13.010(1)(c)1., Florida Administrative Code, requires foster care parents 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. In support of the above allegations, the DCF offered only the testimony of Ms. Daniels who stated: ". . . [A]lso during a conversation Mr. Marlowe used profanity. As far as [sic] concerned as just being uncooperative and maybe someone being uncooperative meaning there's something else behind it as far as, you know, not one to follow the rules that are set by the Department." I find the above testimony of Ms. Daniels to be vague and questionable. In making the foregoing finding, I have taken into consideration the fact that Ms. Daniels could not recall the date, time, place, words, or the circumstances of her conversation with Petitioner in which the alleged profanity was uttered. I have also taken into consideration the testimony of Ms. Stephanie Gardner, regarding Petitioner's uncooperativeness. Ms. Gardner, acknowledging that she did not know, did not remember nor did she recall; then went on to state: " . . . that at some unknown time and date, Petitioner stated, mentioned or indicated some information about a child or foster child that he had parented before. I don't know if it was Gary or one of the children that were actually at the Broward County at the Outreach Broward facility where he worked, but it was some information, and it was kind of alarming." I find the testimony of Ms. Daniels and the testimony of Ms. Gardner regarding the alleged profanity and regarding alleged uncooperativeness of Petitioner with the DCF questionable. Excluding the foregone evidence, other testimony regarding Petitioner and his conduct addressing matters that are related to those specific issues raised in DCF's denial letter of October 30, 2000, is neither material nor relevant to issues under consideration in this cause and disregarded.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondents' foster care license should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondents operated a foster home in Broward County, Florida, pursuant to a license that was issued by the Department in January, 1994. In March, 1994, the Department placed a foster child, M.A.G., in the Respondents' home. This child, M.A.G., was an extremely troubled girl whose interfering biological family kept her in an emotional state of constant turmoil. The "Visitation Reports" introduced into evidence by the Department reflect that the child's adjustment to placement with the Respondents went from "good" to "fair." As the contacts with her family continued, the child's progress with the Respondents deteriorated. The evaluation reflects that the placement went from meeting the child's needs to not meeting the child's needs as of a December 14, 1994 visit. In fact, Respondents asked the Department to remove M.A.G. from their home. Ms. Suppa described the family relationship between M.A.G. and the Respondents as "tumultuous." The contacts between M.A.G. and her biological family caused severe unrest within the home as M.A.G. was torn between her biological family and her growing interest in the Respondents. M.A.G.'s emotional problems were not unusual for children in the custody of the Department. In fact, many foster children in the custody of the Department have emotional problems. Ms. Suppa was involved in family therapy with the Respondents and M.A.G. from October, 1994, to the time M.A.G. was removed from the Respondents' home on January 6, 1995. Ms. Suppa verified that the Respondents did not abuse M.A.G. Ms. Suppa acknowledged that Respondents did not provide the necessary emotional support that M.A.G. needed, and recommended to the Department that the placement be changed. Ms. Suppa could not state what the Respondents could have done, which they did not try, to avoid the incident complained of by the Department. M.A.G. spoke of suicide on occasions but Respondents did everything asked of them to assist the girl. On December 18, 1994, M.A.G. was voluntarily admitted to the Florida Medical Center for psychological testing following an incident that occurred in the Respondents' home. On this occasion, M.A.G. had a knife in her hands and threatened to kill herself. The Respondents called the police to assist them. On release, M.A.G.'s emotional state continued to deteriorate despite Respondents' best efforts. Respondents took M.A.G. to counseling. They never missed a counseling session and willingly agreed to explore any options that were suggested. When M.A.G. chose to spend the 1994 holidays with Respondents, she was cursed by her sister and ignored by her grandmother. This caused a serious depression. M.A.G.'s biological mother did not attend her appointed counseling sessions. M.A.G. was disappointed since she had hoped to see her mother. On December 28, 1994, M.A.G. missed one dose of her medication. No conclusion is reached that this omission led to, or caused, the incident of January 3, 1995. On January 3, 1995, M.A.G. had to be Baker Acted. She was again admitted to the Florida Medical Center for psychological testing and treatment following an incident that occurred in the Respondents' home. Once again M.A.G. had threatened to kill herself with a knife. Since being moved from Respondents' home M.A.G. has progressed and is no longer on medication. No conclusion is reached from this progress, however, since M.A.G.'s biological family's contact with her is unknown. M.A.G. had a strong loyalty to her biological family. Respondents have been foster parents for many years in New York. This was the first incident wherein a foster child could not adjust to the Respondents' home. The Respondents tried everything within their control to make the foster relationship with M.A.G. work out.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order approving Respondents' request for licensure renewal. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1556 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11 are accepted. Paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondents: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are accepted. Paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as irrelevant or comment. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Carole C. Wilhelm Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 W. Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Carole A. and Alex Lezdey 9711 N.W. 20th Street Coral Springs, Florida 33701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners should be issued a family foster home license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony, exhibits, and stipulated facts in the Joint Stipulation, the following Findings of Fact are made: Parties and Process Petitioners, who are husband and wife, submitted an application for licensure as a family foster home. Although this was an application for initial licensure, Petitioners were previously licensed as a foster home from August 2013 to October 2019.1 The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing foster care parents and foster homes, pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-45. Petitioners voluntarily relinquished their foster home license on or about October 28, 2019, around the time two female foster children, S.W. and H.C.S., were removed from their care. It is unclear whether the children were removed because of an abuse investigation related to H.C.S., or whether they were removed because Petitioners closed their home to foster children. Regardless, Mrs. Gilio testified that they let their license lapse because they needed a break after fostering H.C.S. The Department administers foster care licensing by contracting with third-party private entities. In Circuit 13, where Petitioners are located, the Department contracted with Eckerd Community Alternatives, doing business as Eckerd Connects (Eckerd), to be the agency responsible for facilitating foster care licensing. Eckerd has subcontracted with Children's Home Network (CHN) to facilitate foster care licensing. 1 Petitioners had previously been denied a foster care license in 2009. At the time relevant to Petitioners, the Department used the "attestation" model of foster home licensing. In this model, a private licensing agency with whom the Department has contracted will conduct a home study on the foster home applicants and attest to the applicants' fitness to be licensed. The Department does not have the discretion to deny the license once the licensing agency has attested to the appropriateness of the applicants, except if they have been named as caregivers in three or more abuse reports within five years. If there are such abuse reports, the Department is required to review those reports and make a final decision regarding the application. There is no requirement that the reports result in a finding of actual abuse for them to be reviewed by the Department.2 Although it is unclear when Petitioners submitted their application for the foster care license in this case, sometime in late 2019, CHN conducted and compiled a Unified Home Study (home study), which included Petitioners' background screening; previous reports of abuse, abandonment, or neglect involving the applicants, and references from all adult children. The home study was reviewed at a meeting on December 19, 2019, by Eckerd, through the Committee. The Committee considered the application, home study, and licensing packet and heard from various agency staff. Petitioners were also allowed to voice comments and concerns at this meeting. Had the Committee approved the application, it would have been sent to the Department along with an attestation that stated the foster home meets all requirements for licensure and a foster home license is issued by the Department. However, the Committee unanimously voted not to recommend approval of a foster home license to Petitioners. 2 The categories of findings for an abuse report are "no indicator," "not substantiated," and "verified." "No indicator" means there was no credible evidence to support a determination of abuse. "Not substantiated" means there is evidence, but it does not meet the standard of being a preponderance to support that a specific harm is the result of abuse. "Verified" means that there is a preponderance of credible evidence which results in a determination that a specific harm was a result of abuse. Frank Prado, Suncoast Regional Managing Director for the Department, ultimately decided to deny Petitioners' application for a family foster home license due to their prior parenting experiences, the multiple abuse reports regarding their home, and the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Prado expressed concern about the nature of the abuse reports and Petitioners' admission that they used corporal punishment on a child they adopted from the foster care system in the presence of other foster children. Petitioners' Parenting History Petitioners have seven children: one is the biological son of Mr. Gilio; another is the biological son of Mrs. Gilio; and five were adopted through the foster care system in Florida. Of these seven children, six are now adults. Three of the adopted children, Jay, Sean, and Jameson, are biological brothers who Petitioners adopted in 2001. Shawna, who was adopted around 2003, is the only adopted daughter. The Petitioners' one minor child, H.G., is a nine-year-old boy and the only child who resides in their home. H.G. suffers from oppositional defiance disorder. Petitioners admitted they adopted Shawna after there had been allegations of inappropriate behavior made against Jay, by a young girl who lived next door to Petitioners. Later, while they were living with Petitioners, Jay, Sean, and Jameson were arrested for sexually abusing Shawna at different times. As a result, one or more of the sons were court-ordered to not be around Shawna, and the other brothers were required to undergo treatment and never returned to Petitioners' home. During the hearing, both Petitioners seem to blame Shawna, who was nine years old when the sexual abuse by Jay in their home allegedly began, for disrupting their home. They accused her of being "not remorseful" and "highly sexualized." Regarding the abuse by Sean and Jameson, which occurred when Shawna was approximately 12 years old, Mr. Gilio stated Shawna thought it was okay to have sex with boys, and it was "hard to watch every minute of the day if they're, you know, having sex." When Shawna was about 19 years old, she filed a "Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence" against Mr. Gilio in circuit court. The Petition outlined allegations of past sexual comments and inappropriate disciplinary behavior from 2007 to 2012, while she lived with Petitioners. Mr. Gilio denied at the hearing having any knowledge about the Petition against him, but admitted he made comments about Shawna's breasts. As part of the application and home study process, the CHN collected references from Petitioners' former foster children and adult children. Shawna (Petitioners' only adopted daughter) gave them a negative reference and specifically stated she would not want female foster children to live with Petitioners. Reports of Abuse Petitioners were involved in 24 abuse reports during their time of licensure between 2013 and 2019. During the past five years, Petitioners were named as either alleged perpetrators or caregivers responsible in eight reports that were made to the Florida Child Abuse Hotline (Hotline). Of those eight reports, five of them named Mr. Gilio as the alleged perpetrator causing a physical injury, one report named Mr. Gilio as the caregiver responsible for a burn on a foster child, and one report named Mr. Gilio as an alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse against a foster child. Mrs. Gilio was named as an alleged perpetrator of asphyxiation as to a foster child. Seven of the reports in the last five years against Petitioners were closed with no indicators of abuse. One of the abuse reports was closed with a "not substantiated" finding of physical injury. In this report, Mr. Gilio was the alleged perpetrator and the victim was H.G., Petitioners' minor adopted son. Additionally, after Petitioners let their foster license lapse in October 2019, a subsequent report was made against Mr. Gilio for improper contact with a former foster daughter. This incident was discussed at the Committee meeting, but it was unclear if this allegation was ever investigated. Corporal Punishment According to the Department's rules, discussed below, foster parents are forbidden to engage in corporal punishments of any kind. In 2019, there were two reports alleging Mr. Gilio of causing physical injury by corporal punishment on H.G. At the time, there were other foster children in the household. Technically, Mr. Gilio was allowed to use corporal punishment on H.G. because he was no longer a foster child and had been adopted from foster care. If a parent uses corporal punishment on a child, there can be no findings of abuse unless the child suffered temporary or permanent disfigurement. However, foster care providers are not permitted to use corporal punishment. More than one witness at the hearing had concerns about the use of corporal punishment against H.G. because of his operational defiance disorder and because other foster children (who may have been victims of physical abuse) were in the household. Brendale Perkins, who is a foster parent herself and serves on the Hillsborough County Family Partnership Alliance, an organization that supports licensed foster parents, testified she witnessed Mr. Gilio treating a foster child in his care roughly. At the time, she was concerned because this was not the way children in foster care (who may have previously been victims of abuse) should be treated. She did not, however, report it to any authorities. The Department established through testimony that the policy against using corporal punishment is taught to all potential foster families. Mr. Gilio, however, denied ever being instructed not to use corporal punishment against foster children or while foster children were in the home. He also claimed that H.G.'s therapist had never recommended any specific punishment techniques. The undersigned finds Mr. Gilio's testimony not credible. Cooperation with Fostering Partners The Department established that decisions regarding foster children are made within a "system of care" which includes input from case managers, guardian ad litem (GAL), and support service providers. The relationship between Petitioners and others working as part of this system during the time of fostering was not ideal; it was described by witnesses as "tense" and "disgruntled." One witness, a supervisor at CHN, testified Mr. Gilio was not receptive or flexible when partnering with other agencies, and was not always open to providing information when questioned. As an example, Petitioners fired a therapist without consulting with the CHN staff or the GAL for the child. At the final hearing, Mr. Gilio continued to claim he did nothing wrong by not consulting with others in the system regarding this decision. Kristin Edwardson, a child protection investigator for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, was tasked with investigating the reports of abuse and neglect against Petitioners that had been reported to the Hotline. She testified she was concerned with the level of cooperation they provided her and other investigators. Although they ultimately would cooperate, Petitioners made it difficult for the investigators and would often "push back" and make the situation more stressful. She described Mr. Gilio as being disrespectful, belittling, and dismissive of her. Licensing Review Committee On December 19, 2020, the Committee, made up of eight individuals, was convened to review Petitioners' application for a foster home license. When determining whether a family should receive a foster home license, the Committee is to evaluate the applicants' background, parenting experience, references from community partners, and the family's openness and willingness to partner. Sheila DelCastillo, a regional trainer with the GAL program, was a Committee member. She had prior knowledge of Petitioners from a report that a foster child's room in Petitioners' home smelled strongly of urine during a home visit and that GAL staff had found a prescription bottle beside the child’s bed that belonged to Mr. Gilio. With regards to Petitioners' application, she read the licensing review packet and home study that contained numerous abuse reports. Ms. DelCastillo was concerned about the 24 abuse reports Petitioners’ received during their time of licensure, the negative reference from Shawna, their use of corporal punishment on H.G., and Petitioners' downplaying of the events that led to multiple abuse reports. Michelle Costley, a licensing director with CHN in charge of level 2 traditional foster homes, also served on the Committee. Ms. Costley has 14 years of experience, with seven of those years spent in foster care licensing. As director of licensing, Ms. Costley was concerned about the number of abuse reports received regarding Petitioners; Mr. Gilio's inability to be open and flexible when working in partnership with other agencies; and the needs of Petitioners' child, H.G. She was also concerned about Petitioners' decision to fire a therapist of a foster child without consulting the GAL or the other individuals involved with that child. Regarding the alleged abuse, Ms. Costley was concerned that most of the reports regarding Petitioners involved allegations of physical abuse, inappropriate touch of a sexual nature, or sexual abuse, with most alleged victims being younger than eight years old. She explained that even though these reports could not be "verified," these types of allegations are harder to establish because testimony by children of that age often is unreliable and there usually must be evidence of physical injury, which no longer is present by the time the alleged abuse is investigated. Ms. Perkins also served on the Committee. Ms. Perkins served as a foster parent mentor, working with foster parents to help them build co- parenting strategies and navigate the system of care. She has been a licensed foster parent for 13 years and has adopted 11 children from foster care. As stated earlier, she was familiar with Petitioners from the Hillsborough County Family Partnership Alliance meetings. Ms. Perkins was concerned with the number of abuse reports with similar allegations, but different victims. She also discussed Petitioners' use of corporal punishment, noting that they could have been using verbal de-escalation methods instead of corporal punishment due to the traumatic histories of many foster care children. Ms. Edwardson also served on the Committee. In addition to her personal interactions with Petitioners, Ms. Edwardson was concerned about the totality of the information presented to the Committee regarding the abuse reports and Mr. Gilio's lack of cooperation. She noted that although they were not substantiated, the number and nature of the reports related to young children were of concern. Based on the Committee notes and transcript of the meeting, Petitioners were allowed to respond to the Committee's questions at the December 2019 meeting. They argued that none of the abuse reports were proven true and any injuries were not their fault. They seemed more concerned about who made the abuse reports and why the abuse reports were called in than whether the foster children were protected in their care. For example, although Mr. Gilio admitted to hitting H.G. with a stick twice as big as a pencil, he denied any bruising was caused by the stick. A report of a burn on another child was explained by Mr. Gilio as an accident that occurred while he was teaching her how to iron; he could not understand why this was reported as possible abuse. Ms. Gilio explained that H.C.S. was a very active child which resulted in her needing stitches and requiring restraint. After hearing from Petitioners, the Committee members discussed their concerns that Petitioners were not forthcoming about the various abuse incidents, and would not take responsibility for any of the injuries or issues raised by the abuse reports. All eight members voted to not move Petitioners' application forward.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families denying a family foster home license to Petitioners, Mary and James Gilio. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 9th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Duran, Esquire Tison Law Group 9312 North Armenia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 (eServed) Deanne Cherisse Fields, Esquire Department of Children and Families 9393 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 (eServed) Lacey Kantor, Esquire Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204Z 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Javier A. Enriquez, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204F 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Chad Poppell, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of acts and omissions to justify the revocation of his license to operate a family foster home, pursuant to Section 409.175(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner licensed Respondent to operate a family foster home from June 22, 2000, until May 15, 2001, at which time Petitioner revoked Respondent's license. The only foster children placed with Petitioner were Ju. K. (Ju.) and J. K. (J.), who are brothers. During the majority of the period in question, Ju. was 16 years old and J. was 17 years old. The boys were adopted at infancy. However, their adoptive mother died when they were young. The adoptive father remarried, but died a few years later, in January 1999. The stepmother never adopted the children, and, shortly after the death of their adoptive father, she turned over the two children to foster care. Respondent had been a friend of the stepmother since the mid-1980s and, through her, had met the adoptive father. Respondent became close with the couple and their children, whom he often visited on holidays. Learning that at least one of the boys had had problems in foster care, Respondent decided to qualify to become their foster father. At the time, Respondent was 40 years old and single and had not raised any other children. However, Respondent took the training courses required for licensing as a foster parent. After Respondent obtained his foster parent license, Project Teamwork for Kids, which is the private entity in Brevard County that recruits, trains, and licenses foster parents and places foster children with these parents, placed Ju. and J. with Respondent. J. began to live with Respondent in January 2000, and Ju. joined him in June 2000. During the summer of 2000, relations among Respondent, J., and Ju. were good. They took vacations and settled into their new lives during a period relatively free of stressful demands. Respondent asked Project Teamwork 4 Kids representatives not to start any family therapy during the summer and, once school started, asked that they again defer the initiation of such services. Respondent was aware that Ju. had been diagnosed with dissociative personality disorder, but believed that a normal home life would ameliorate this condition. During the summer, Respondent was concerned with the high school to which Ju. had been assigned for ninth grade. Respondent convinced school officials to reassign Ju. to a different high school, but school officials warned Respondent that, due to the reassignment, they would not tolerate disruptive behavior from Ju. Respondent was satisfied with J.'s assignment for tenth grade because it was the same school from which he had earlier dropped out. At the start of the school year, Respondent required weekly progress reports from J.'s teachers. However, as J.'s grades improved, Respondent dropped this requirement. During the period covered by this case, Respondent's relationship with J. was better than Respondent's relationship with Ju. Respondent and J. had a major disagreement arise at the end of October when J. returned home drunk from a homecoming celebration. A day or two later, after giving the matter considerable thought, Respondent discussed the matter with J. and imposed the punishment that Respondent would not provide his written consent for J. to obtain his driving learner's permit for six months, although Respondent would reconsider at three months. When J. learned of his punishment, he became irate and telephoned his case manager with Project Teamwork 4 Kids, Karen McCalla. He demanded that she remove him from Respondent's home. Ms. McCalla visited the home and spoke with J. alone for several hours, then Respondent, and then J. again alone. This home visit provides an early, but typical, example of the difference in perspectives of Respondent and Petitioner's witnesses. According to Respondent, Ms. McCalla arrived at the home, spoke with J. alone for several hours, spoke with Respondent, and then spoke with J. alone again. She then announced that Respondent should sign for J.'s learner's permit, but not allow him to drive for three months. Although he disagreed with the recommendation and felt that Ms. McCalla's recommendation had undercut his authority, Respondent complied with the request. Ms. McCalla's version is considerably different. Agreeing that J. was demanding that she remove him from Respondent's home, Ms. McCalla noted that J. complained generally that Respondent was "overbearing, overpowering and does not give [J.] any privacy." Focusing on the larger issues than merely the proper punishment for J.'s recent misbehavior, Ms. McCalla recommended that the family undergo family therapy. Ms. McCalla's version is credited. By Respondent's own account, Ms. McCalla spent "several hours" speaking with J. initially. Although underage drinking is a serious matter that may necessitate serious discussions, it is unlikely that Ms. McCalla and J. could have spent "several hours" on this single transgression. It is more likely that J. broadened his complaints in the manner described by Ms. McCalla. Respondent's contrary version either undermines his credibility as a witness or, if sincere, his competence as a foster parent. During the fall, Respondent's relationship with Ju. deteriorated. In general, Respondent's nascent parental skills were insufficient to meet the needs of Ju. When a conventional menu of incentives and disincentives failed to produce the desired results, Respondent grew increasingly frustrated, but declined to take advantage of the support resources available to him through Project Teamwork 4 Kids and its contractors. Instead, Respondent, alone, proceeded with his own disciplinary scheme, intensifying his disciplinary measures each time that less intense measures failed. Eventually, conflict between Respondent and Ju. escalated, and the domestic situation became unbearable for both of them. For instance, at school, Respondent was legitimately concerned that Ju. not jeopardize his placement at the high school to which he had been assigned due to Respondent's efforts. Worried about Ju.'s associations at school, especially due to Ju.'s poor school associations in the past, Respondent required Ju. to sign into the library immediately after eating lunch, so he would not have the chance to socialize with his peers. If Ju. failed to sign in, a teacher was to telephone Respondent, who would go to school to find Ju. By Respondent's admission, he enforced this arrangement for four to six weeks. Respondent was adamant that Ju. not date until he was 16 years old. This was a legitimate concern due to sexual behaviors that Ju. had displayed prior to his arrival in Respondent's home. Early in the school year, while Ju. was still 15 years old, Respondent overheard him speaking on the telephone with a girl from school. Respondent interrupted the conversation and asked Ju. to ask the girl if her mother were home. Finding that she was, Respondent asked to speak to the mother. Explaining to the mother that Ju. was not allowed to go on one-on-one dates until he reached 16 years of age, Respondent, by his own testimony, managed to agitate and offend the mother. Respondent admitted that Ju. became upset because he had considered the girl his girlfriend. On another occasion, Respondent required that Ju. end a relationship with a girl at school. Without detailing any concerns about sexual activity, Respondent explained his intervention by noting that Ju. had taken another boy's girlfriend, who seems to have not been suitable for Ju.--in Respondent's opinion. At home, numerous times Respondent employed more intense strategies when conventional disciplinary interventions failed to produce the desired results. For instance, when Ju. persisted in viewing sexually unsuitable material on the television in his room, Respondent removed the bedroom door, thus depriving Ju. of all privacy. Also, when Ju. persisted in abusing and overusing the telephone, even after being placed on telephone restriction, Respondent removed the handsets when he left the home, leaving the boy without telephone service in the home, although he could walk outside the apartment to a neighbor or a pay phone. Gradually, frustration erupted into physical confrontations. Twice, Respondent ripped T-shirts off the back of the boy during angry exchanges. Once, Respondent lightly slapped the boy on the mouth when he swore at Respondent. Twice, Respondent intentionally damaged audio equipment used by Ju. For each of these actions, Respondent devised transparent stories to cover up his failure to handle Ju.'s transgressions in a positive, effective manner. As the above incidents suggest, Respondent sought to impose a level of control over Ju. that was unsuitable for Ju.'s age and the circumstances of the relationship that existed between Respondent and Ju. Lacking both experience and maturity, Respondent obstinately dug in deeper each time his discipline failed to produce the desired result. Never lacking in good motives, Respondent lacked the resources needed for the difficult parenting task that Ju. presented, and Respondent exacerbated the situation by refusing to accept the assistance of professionals who might have been able to help him with Ju. Over time, even Respondent's innocuous behavior- modification techniques became counterproductive. For instance, Respondent routinely insisted that he and a child not go to sleep without first resolving any conflicts that may have arisen. Although a salutary policy, if applied with discretion, Respondent's overbearing implementation of this policy intensified hostilities, rather than defused them. An example of the injudicious use of this policy took place in early February 2001 when Respondent and Ju. got into an argument over an uncompleted homework assignment. Respondent warned Ju. that Petitioner lacked sufficient beds to accommodate Ju. at the time and that, if Ju. did not compose himself, Respondent would call the police to have Ju. removed from Respondent's home. This was especially hurtful to a child who had already known the pain of abandonment and abuse. Trying to defuse the confrontation, Ju. demanded time to step outside and cool off, but Respondent, insistent on a resolution on his terms, ordered Ju. to remain inside until Respondent had finished talking to him. By March 2001, Project Teamwork 4 Kids representatives had tried to intervene on at least two occasions in recent weeks, but Respondent had become increasingly resistant to what he viewed as interference from caseworkers with Ju. and J. By this time, Ju. wanted out of the home, and Respondent wanted him out of the home. On March 28, 2001, Project Teamwork 4 Kids removed Ju. from Respondent's home. About six weeks later, Project Teamwork 4 Kids also removed J. from Respondent's home. Petitioner proved some of its specific allegations and failed to prove others, but, as the Administrative Law Judge noted at the final hearing, the basic issue in this case is whether Petitioner can prove that Respondent has committed an intentional or negligent act materially affected the health or safety of children in his home. Petitioner has met its burden with respect to Ju. Ju. would have been a considerable challenge to a person with considerable parenting experience and skills. Respondent lacked both, but, knowing Ju.'s special needs, nonetheless sought the responsibility of serving as Ju.'s foster father. As the situation worsened, Respondent lacked the insight to avail himself of the resources offered to him and Ju. Instead, Respondent resorted to ineffective disciplinary strategies that eventually deteriorated into angry outbursts, culminating in Respondent's angry and desperate threat to end the placement itself--a most injurious act, given Ju.'s circumstances and dissociative personality disorder. Although it is clear that Respondent assumed a very difficult undertaking, his incompetent discharge of these responsibilities, coupled with his obstinate refusal to accept readily available help from others with greater training and experience, justifies the revocation of his family foster home license.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order revoking Respondent's family foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Deborah Guller Department of Children and Family Services 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 502 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Samuel D. Lopez Samuel D. Lopez, P.A. 629 Southeast Fifth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Alan Siegel 500 Northwest 34th Street, Apartment #105 Pompano Beach, Florida 33064
