The Issue Whether Respondent's licenses to operate two group homes should be renewed, or whether renewal should be denied for the reasons charged in the administrative complaints issued by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating group home facilities. The statewide headquarters, or "central office," is in Tallahassee. Regional offices carry out the licensing and regulatory functions within their designated regions, or "areas," in coordination with the central office. APD Area 14 covers Polk, Hardee, and Highlands Counties. Beginning in 2007 and at all times material to this proceeding, HIOTW has been a provider of various residential and non-residential services to developmentally disabled persons in Lakeland, Polk County, Florida, within APD Area 14. In 2007, HIOTW was licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to provide non-residential homemaker and companion care services. In November 2008, HIOTW became licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate Paces Trail Group Home to provide residential habilitation services to developmentally disabled adults. Shortly thereafter, HIOTW was licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate its second group home, Hampton Group Home. HIOTW was licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate Timbergreen in May 2009. In February 2010, the APD Area 14 office issued a license to HIOTW to operate its fourth group home in Lakeland--Lake Miriam. The group home license renewal of these two group homes, each with a capacity to serve six adult male residents with developmental disabilities, is at issue in this proceeding. After initial licensure of a group home, the license must be renewed annually. All of HIOTW's group homes successfully have gone through the license renewal process one or more times, except for Lake Miriam, which is seeking its first license renewal. On November 12, 2010, HIOTW submitted an application to the APD Area 14 office to renew its license to operate Lake Miriam. On March 3, 2011, HIOTW submitted an application to renew its license to operate Timbergreen. By letter dated March 25, 2011, Petitioner denied the Lake Miriam license renewal application (March 25 Denial Letter). Petitioner relies on the following charges alleged in the March 25 Denial Letter as the basis for Petitioner's decision: On or about April 14, 2010, an employee of the applicant left two vulnerable adult group home residents alone in a car for at least ten minutes while that employee conducted business inside a bank. One of the adult residents who was left unsupervised in the car had a history of sexually molesting children and other vulnerable adults. The other resident who was left unsupervised in the car was non-verbal. This instance threatened the health, safety, and well being of the applicant's residents in violation of page A-8 of the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook and Rule 65G-2.012(15)(b), F.A.C. On or about September 29, 2010, an employee of the applicant was transporting group home residents when one of the residents left the vehicle without the driver's knowledge. The vulnerable adult resident was later located at a neighborhood store. This instance threatened the health, safety, and well being of the applicant's residents in violation of page A-8 of the Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook and Rule 65G- 2.012(15)(b), F.A.C. The March 25 Denial Letter also alleged that HIOTW failed to submit a current approved emergency management plan as a third reason to deny the license renewal application. However, Petitioner abandoned the third charge at the outset of the final hearing. Petitioner sought to support its proposed denial of the Lake Miriam license renewal application solely as a penal measure based on the two alleged incidents quoted above. As such, but for these two alleged incidents, Petitioner acknowledges that Lake Miriam's license renewal application is otherwise entitled to approval. By letter dated April 29, 2011, Petitioner denied the Timbergreen license renewal application (April 29 Denial Letter). The April 29 Denial Letter set forth the same two charges that were alleged in the March 25 Denial Letter as the basis for Petitioner's decision. In other words, the same two incidents were asserted as grounds for denying both the Lake Miriam license renewal application and the Timbergreen license renewal application. But for these two incidents, Timbergreen's license renewal application, like Lake Miriam's application, is otherwise entitled to approval. First Alleged Incident (on or about April 14, 2010) The credible evidence established the following facts relevant to the first charged incident. In early April 2010, an employee of HIOTW's licensed companion care service, Frank Davis, was providing companion care to R.O., a developmentally disabled adult. R.O. was not a resident of any HIOTW group home. Instead, R.O. received only non-residential companion services through HIOTW from its employee Frank Davis. As previously noted, companion care services are licensed and regulated by a different agency, AHCA. R.O. was classified as developmentally disabled due to mild mental retardation and behavioral problems. R.O. had a history of sexually abusing children and vulnerable adults. R.O. also had a known tendency of "telling big whoppers," i.e., he was known to be a habitual liar. R.O. apparently told someone two stories of alleged incidents involving his companion, HIOTW employee Frank Davis. On April 14, 2010, the person to whom R.O. told the stories reported the two alleged incidents to the hotline operated by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), which fields reports of possible abuse or neglect.2/ One story told by R.O., as reported to DCF, was that Mr. Davis had left R.O. alone with Mr. Davis's three-year-old daughter. The other story told by R.O., as reported to DCF, was that Mr. Davis had left R.O. alone in a car with a non-verbal vulnerable adult for a period of time while Mr. Davis went into a bank to conduct some business. If true, these allegations of R.O. allegedly being left alone with a child in one instance and with a non-verbal vulnerable adult in the other instance would be of great concern. Both the child and the non-verbal vulnerable adult with whom R.O. was allegedly left alone would have to be considered at great risk of abuse by R.O., given R.O.'s known history of sexually abusing both children and vulnerable adults. With regard to R.O.'s first story, involving Mr. Davis's three-year-old daughter, a DCF adult protective investigator (API) was able to quickly determine that the allegation was completely baseless. In screening this allegation to determine if a formal investigation was warranted, the API spoke with R.O. and then with Samuel Cooper, one of the owners of HIOTW, on April 15, 2010, the day after the hotline call. Mr. Cooper provided a detailed description of the physical appearance of Frank Davis's daughter. When Mr. Cooper's description of Mr. Davis's daughter was compared to R.O.'s description of the girl with whom he was supposedly left alone, the two descriptions were so vastly different that the API was able to, and did, immediately determine that R.O. had fabricated the story, and the matter was closed without a formal investigation. The same API conducted an investigation of R.O.'s second story that he was left in Mr. Davis's car with a non-verbal vulnerable adult while Mr. Davis went into a bank. However, the API did not mention this story when he spoke with Mr. Cooper, nor did the API inform anyone from HIOTW that he was conducting a formal investigation. In conducting his investigation, the API spoke with R.O., twice with Mr. Davis, and with O.J. Bennett, another owner of HIOTW. HIOTW initially learned of R.O.'s story about the bank trip by a phone call from R.O.'s waiver support coordinator. Mr. Bennett immediately investigated the matter, speaking with Mr. Davis and also with the bank manager who was present and had personally observed the events that day. Mr. Bennett's report from his investigation was that when Mr. Davis drove up to the bank with R.O., he left R.O. in the car only to walk about nine feet from the car to the bank's glass entrance area. Mr. Davis signaled to a bank employee who came to the door. Mr. Davis told the employee he wanted to set up an account to make direct deposits of his paycheck. When Mr. Davis was told he would have to come into the bank and it would take a few minutes, Mr. Davis went back to the car for R.O. and brought him into the bank to wait while Mr. Davis set up the account. R.O. remained in Mr. Davis's sight at all times. Based on Mr. Bennett's report, which he reviewed with Mr. Cooper, HIOTW determined an unusual incident report (UIR) was not required, because there was no reason to suspect neglect of R.O. Several weeks later, when HIOTW learned from an APD employee that DCF was conducting a formal investigation, HIOTW submitted a UIR that set forth the details of Mr. Bennett's investigation and concluded that R.O. had been in Mr. Davis's sight and adequately supervised at all times. The APD Area 14 administrator confirmed in her testimony that if the facts were as Mr. Bennett found them to be in his investigation, there would not have been inadequate supervision, and there would have been no reason to submit a UIR. Of greatest significance with regard to R.O.'s story about the bank incident, the API determined that R.O. had lied about being left with a non-verbal vulnerable adult. Instead, the API found that Mr. Davis drove to a bank with R.O., and no one else, in the car. The DCF investigator's report summarized the differing versions of events told to him by R.O. and by Mr. Davis. R.O.'s version was that Mr. Davis left him in the car for the whole time that he went into the bank. Of course, R.O. also said that he was left with another adult, and that was not true. Therefore, R.O.'s statement to the DCF investigator could not be considered credible or reliable. According to the DCF investigator, Mr. Davis told him that he left R.O. alone in the car to go into the bank, but came back out of the bank to get R.O., who he then brought into the bank to wait while he conducted his business. However, Mr. Davis testified that he only told the DCF investigator that he walked up to the bank while R.O. was in the car. Mr. Davis's version of what happened and what he told the DCF investigator is more credible than the DCF investigator's report of what Mr. Davis told him. Mr. Davis's version was corroborated by the hearsay account of the bank manager, who told Mr. Bennett that Mr. Davis brought R.O. in the bank with him, only having left R.O. alone to walk up to the bank entrance. The bank manager confirmed Mr. Davis's testimony that R.O. was in Mr. Davis's sight at all times. In crediting Mr. Davis's version of events, corroborated by the bank manager, the undersigned finds it significant that Mr. Bennett told the DCF investigator about the bank manager eyewitness, and Mr. Bennett was under the impression that the DCF investigator would follow up by calling the bank manager. But the DCF investigator did not attempt to interview anyone at the bank, despite the fact that persons at the bank would have been the only other eyewitnesses besides Mr. Davis, who had a self-interest in the incident, and R.O., the habitual liar whose other story about Mr. Davis had been proven false. Petitioner did not undertake its own investigation of the facts, either at the time of the incident or at the time it was considering whether to rely on the incident as grounds to, in effect, revoke two of HIOTW's group home licenses. Instead, according to the area administrator for APD Area 14, Petitioner simply relied on the DCF investigation report. Indeed, the area administrator did not even seem to understand the DCF report, because at the hearing, she was adamant in her belief that DCF confirmed the allegation that Mr. Davis left R.O. in a car with a vulnerable non-verbal adult group home resident. The area administrator conveyed her misimpression to the central office in discussions to consider whether to non-renew two HIOTW group home licenses based on this incident. Ultimately at hearing, the area administrator conceded that she was improperly interpreting the DCF report, thinking that the allegation portion of the report contained the actual DCF findings. Even so, she steadfastly (and erroneously) asserted that she did not give any false information to the central office regarding HIOTW.3/ In addition to the misimpression conveyed about the R.O. incident, the area administrator testified that she had an employee convey numerous reports of allegations or suspicions of HIOTW improprieties to the central office in a single packet for the purpose of a decision on whether to renew the two HIOTW group home licenses. The area administrator explained other information about allegations and suspicions were sent in the same package so that the central office could also consider whether to terminate HIOTW's Medicaid waiver provider agreement at the same time. However, she admitted that the whole packet of material was sent for the purpose of review and a decision on whether to non-renew HIOTW's two group home licenses. As such, it would be difficult to ignore the extraneous allegations when making decisions regarding the license renewal applications, "[o]f course, you have all of that in your mind[.]" The actual transmittal package to the central office was not produced, apparently because it was sent by electronic mail, and there were some APD email system problems that got in the way of producing the email transmittal package. Nonetheless, the area administrator's description of what she believes was sent in a single package to the central office was sufficient to paint the picture of a litany of negative missives regarding HIOTW, intended, in part, to support the area administrator's recommendation to deny license renewal.4/ Petitioner did not allege in the administrative complaints and did not prove at the hearing that HIOTW itself was blameworthy for the R.O. incident. The APD Area 14 administrator testified that in recommending non-renewal of the two HIOTW group home licenses, a significant factor that she took into account was that HIOTW failed to promptly submit a UIR to report the R.O. incident. The facts found with respect to the R.O. incident do not demonstrate that a UIR was required. Moreover, HIOTW was not charged, in either administrative complaint, with a violation of its UIR reporting obligations. The DCF incident report concluded with a verified finding of inadequate supervision. The DCF investigator testified that it was his finding that "[p]rimarily, Mr. Davis was responsible for the inadequate supervision" of R.O. When asked whether HIOTW was also responsible as Mr. Davis's employer, the investigator said, "being his employer, and trainer, yes." However, neither the DCF investigator, nor Petitioner, presented any evidence to suggest that HIOTW was negligent in its hiring, training, or supervision of its companion care employees, generally, or Mr. Davis, in particular. Nor was there any evidence that HIOTW failed to appropriately respond to the R.O. incident once it was made aware of the incident. The DCF incident report found that Mr. Davis was an appropriately screened employee with no adverse history. Petitioner presented no evidence to the contrary. Both the DCF investigator and the area administrator for APD Area 14 concluded that HIOTW took appropriate action regarding the R.O. incident, by removing Mr. Davis from serving as R.O.'s companion and by putting Mr. Davis through additional "zero-tolerance" training. Mr. Davis's employment was terminated shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to the R.O. incident. Although the DCF incident report verified a finding of inadequate supervision, the report concluded that the overall risk associated with the finding was low because of appropriate corrective action taken by HIOTW.5/ The area administrator for APD Area 14 candidly admitted at the final hearing that HIOTW handled the R.O. incident appropriately and took corrective action that was deemed sufficient by APD and alleviated any health and safety concerns. Inexplicably, she continued to support the charges in the two denial letters, which alleged that the R.O. incident "threatened the health, safety, and well being of the applicant's residents," because R.O., with his history of being sexually abusive, had allegedly been left alone with a vulnerable, non-verbal adult group home resident. Since the R.O. incident did not involve any HIOTW group home residents, but rather, involved non-residential services provided under HIOTW's companion care license, one would expect that if licensure disciplinary action was warranted against HIOTW at all for this incident, it would have been initiated by AHCA as the licensing agency for companion care services. No evidence was presented that AHCA took any disciplinary action against HIOTW's companion care license. Instead, the evidence established that HIOTW's companion care license remained in good standing as of the final hearing, more than one and one-half years after the R.O. incident. Notwithstanding APD's knowledge in June 2010 of the DCF report and findings regarding the R.O. incident, APD proceeded to renew annual licenses for the period of October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011, for two other HIOTW group homes--Pace's Trail Group Home and Hampton Group Home. The license certificates state that the facilities comply with the licensure rules of APD. No evidence was presented that APD issued administrative complaints seeking to revoke these group homes' licenses; however, the area administrator made clear that she did not intend to renew any licenses for any HIOTW group homes in the future. Second Alleged Incident (on or about September 29, 2010) The facts regarding the second alleged incident involving HIOTW employee Donyell Goodman, were not disputed. At the time of the incident, Ms. Goodman had been employed by HIOTW for three years, with a very good, unblemished employee record. On the day in question, she was serving as a van driver to transport several HIOTW companion care clients to various sites within the local community. E.K. was one of those clients receiving companion care services that day; E.K. also was a resident of HIOTW's Lake Miriam Group Home. E.K. is developmentally disabled due to his diagnosis of mental retardation. Ms. Goodman stopped to let off one client, and she watched the client walk to the appropriate destination and go inside. She then resumed driving. When she had driven for about five minutes, she glanced in her rear view mirror and realized that E.K. was not there. Ms. Goodman immediately called LaDonna Bennett, the third owner of HIOTW, to report that E.K. must have snuck out of the van at her last stop, and she was going back to find him. Ms. Bennett also headed over to where Ms. Goodman said she had stopped, to assist. When Ms. Goodman returned to the site of her last stop, she found E.K. there, inside the corner store. E.K. was fine and returned to the van without incident. E.K. apparently admitted to sneaking out of the van, saying he just wanted some fresh air. The entire incident spanned about ten minutes. Ms. Bennett and Ms. Goodman both immediately prepared and submitted UIRs to report the incident. Ms. Goodman received a written reprimand in her HIOTW personnel file and was suspended for several days. When she resumed work, she underwent additional training, was removed from the van driver position, and reassigned to the "third shift" with no direct interaction with residents. The UIR reports triggered a DCF investigation. The AIP who conducted the investigation confirmed the facts that were set forth in the two UIRs. The AIP's investigation included an assessment of E.K. at the Lake Miriam Group Home where E.K. was a resident. The DCF incident report concluded as follows: Victim Safety Factors Implications: No implications for the [victim's] safety. [Perpetrator] Factors Implications: Based on the informaiton [sic] rec'd, API has determined the [adult perpetrator] to pose no threat to the [victim]. No implication [sic] for the [victim's] safety. Facility Factors Implications: Based on the [victim] to the grouphome [sic], API has determined the [victim] to not be at any risk. The API found that the overall safety assessment was low; however, based on the UIRs and interviews with Ms. Goodman and Ms. Bennett, the incident report concluded with a verified finding of inadequate supervision. The API who conducted the investigation testified at hearing and confirmed that the inadequate supervision finding was directed to Ms. Goodman. When asked if HIOTW was also responsible because it was Ms. Goodman's employer, the API said he did not know and could not answer that question. Petitioner did not allege in the administrative complaints, and did not prove at the hearing, that HIOTW itself was blameworthy for the E.K. incident. Neither the DCF investigator, nor Petitioner, offered any evidence that HIOTW had negligently hired, trained, or supervised its employees, including Ms. Goodman in particular. Both the DCF investigator and the APD Area 14 area administrator agreed that HIOTW acted appropriately in response to the E.K. incident to alleviate any concerns about health and safety, by imposing appropriate discipline against Ms. Goodman for her lapse that caused the incident, and by taking steps to ensure no reoccurrence of the incident. In 2011, well after APD had knowledge of the DCF reports and findings on both the R.O. and E.K. incidents, APD issued a series of temporary or conditional licenses to both Lake Miriam and Timbergreen during the license renewal process to give HIOTW time to respond to certain identified omissions in the renewal applications, such as dental records, fire inspection reports, and the like. The temporary and conditional license certificates issued in February and March 2011 state on their face that the facilities comply with the licensure rules of APD. According to the APD Area 14 administrator, each of the DCF reports on the R.O. and E.K. incidents resulted in "a verified abuse finding." The area administrator testified that any DCF report resulting in a verified abuse finding is classified as a Class I offense, which is the most serious class of offenses and is sufficient, without more, to give APD legal authority to deny licensure or renewal of a license to a licensed applicant named in the report. Yet, despite the verified finding regarding the R.O. incident, Petitioner did not deny license renewal applications for other HIOTW group homes. Despite the verified findings in both the R.O. and E.K. incidents, Petitioner issued temporary and conditional licenses to Timbergreen and Lake Miriam during the license renewal process. Thus, Petitioner has not exercised its discretion consistently in dealing with HIOTW. Petitioner has not exercised its discretion consistently in contexts far more egregious than the two incidents charged here. For example, Petitioner acknowledged that a recent incident of abuse and neglect, resulting in the death of a group home resident, did not trigger action by Petitioner to take away all of the group home licenses held by the licensee. Instead, Petitioner only acted to suspend the license of the specific group home where the deceased resident had resided. Petitioner did not attribute this very serious incident to all facilities licensed by the same entity. It would be unreasonable for APD to automatically, without discretion, equate all verified findings--whether of abuse or neglect, whether deemed low risk or high risk, whether risk of death or imminent bodily injury was found or not found. A protracted period of abuse or neglect that actually causes death of a group home resident is on a different plane, in terms of seriousness, from a brief employee lapse in which an individual is not caught when he sneaks away, but is recovered without harm or incident ten minutes later. No explanation was offered by Petitioner as to why, in the more serious situation where a verified incident resulted in death, action was not taken to revoke all group home licenses held by the licensee, whereas here, two incidents verified as low risk situations by DCF (one of which was not proven at the hearing), would cause Petitioner to act more harshly.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, approving Respondent's applications to renew its annual licenses to operate Lake Miriam Group Home and Timbergreen Group Home and issuing standard licenses for one-year terms to those facilities. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents' foster home license should be revoked for violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-13.030(3).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for foster care licensing, pursuant to section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-13. Respondents are a mother, Mary Highsmith, and daughter, Dawndrell Martin, who reside together and obtained a joint license to provide foster care to children on November 16, 2017. On July 16, 2018, the Department’s Florida Abuse Hotline received an abuse report regarding B.H., a five-year-old female, who had been previously removed from her parents due to abuse, abandonment, or neglect and placed in the foster home of Respondents in November of 2017. The abuse report stated that B.H. had bruising on her back, face, and on top of her head. B.H. told the abuse reporter that “TT” had hit her with a brush or comb. “TT” was B.H.’s nickname for Ms. Martin. Daniel Henry, a child protective investigator with the Department, was assigned to investigate the abuse report. He interviewed B.H., who told him that Ms. Martin had punished her by hitting her with a comb, a switch, and a flip-flop and that Ms. Highsmith had repeatedly “thumped” her forehead with a flick of her finger. Mr. Henry interviewed the reporter of the abuse. He contacted local law enforcement to facilitate a joint investigation, contacted the Department’s licensing staff, and interviewed Respondents. Based on B.H.’s statements, Mr. Henry immediately referred the case to the CPT. The CPT is an independent entity created by statute and overseen by an interagency agreement between the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Health. Among other services, the CPT performs assessments that include medical evaluations, specialized clinical interviews, and forensic interviews. See § 39.303, Fla. Stat. In this case, B.H.’s physical injuries led the CPT to arrange a forensic interview and a medical evaluation of the child. Kimberly Dykes is an ARNP working for the CPT. She has undergone specialized training in child maltreatment, including the nature, origin, manifestations, and symptoms of abuse and injuries inflicted upon minor children. Her training included recognizing the difference between accidental and intentional injuries. Ms. Dykes performed a medical examination and interviewed B.H. about the cause of her injuries. Ms. Dykes concluded that B.H.’s wounds were consistent with inflicted injury, and were consistent with the causation described by the child as “having been repeatedly struck with a comb and a switch and having been repeatedly thumped in the forehead.” Ms. Dykes testified that she spoke with the investigator for the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office, Sergeant Cheree Edwards. Ms. Dykes stated that Sgt. Edwards provided her with the explanations that Respondents had offered for B.H.’s injuries. Ms. Dykes testified that she was able to medically rule out each of these explanations as lacking appropriate medical and testimonial support for their causation. Ms. Dykes further recommended that B.H. be removed from Respondents’ home and placed in alternate custody. Angela Griffin is a specialist with the CPT, who is certified to provide specialized clinical interviews and forensic interviews of minor children. Ms. Griffin conducted a forensic interview of B.H. Ms. Griffin testified as to the safeguards necessary to protect the integrity of the interview process with a child, such as building rapport, discussing the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, and explaining the “rules of the room” to the child, including the fact that the interview will be recorded and that the child should make it known if she does not understand a question. Ms. Griffin stated that she employed all these safeguards during her interview with B.H. During her interview with Ms. Griffin, B.H. described how her injuries were inflicted. This description was consistent with the story B.H. told to the abuse reporter, to Mr. Henry, and to Ms. Dykes.1/ B.H. told Ms. Griffin that Ms. Martin had hit her on the head, in the face, and on the back with a comb, a switch, and a flip-flop, and that Ms. Highsmith had thumped her forehead. Upon concluding the forensic interview and medical evaluation, Ms. Griffin and Ms. Dykes provided recommendations for the care of B.H. They recommended that B.H. be removed immediately from the home of Respondents. They further recommended that any and all other children placed with Respondents be removed, and that no further children be placed with them. They recommended counseling for B.H. After concluding his investigation and consulting with the CPT, Mr. Henry verified the allegations of physical abuse by Ms. Martin. He recommended that Respondents’ foster home license be revoked and that no other children be allowed to reside with them. At the hearing, Sgt. Edwards testified as to the investigation she conducted for the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office. She stated that in cases of joint investigation by the Department and law enforcement, the CPT is critical in allowing a single point of contact with the minor victim. It is in the best interest of the child to avoid multiple and redundant interviews that could cause repeated trauma. Following the joint investigation protocol, Sgt. Edwards did not conduct her own interview of B.H., but observed the recording of Ms. Griffin’s interview with B.H. Sgt. Edwards also reviewed the notes made by Mr. Henry, the Department’s investigator. Sgt. Edwards interviewed Respondents and took repeated statements from them regarding possible origins of the injuries to B.H. She allowed Respondents to provide any and all evidence relevant to this matter. Sgt. Edwards testified that she contacted, or attempted to contact, every witness named by Respondents, including the day care teachers, and reviewed every piece of evidence presented by Respondents. During her investigation, Sgt. Edwards discovered a hair comb at Respondents’ residence. A photograph of the comb taken by law enforcement was presented as an exhibit in this proceeding. The photo shows a long-handled “rattail” comb. Sgt. Edwards determined this comb to match the item described by B.H. as the implement used by Ms. Martin to hit her on the head. Ms. Dykes testified that the comb showed in the photograph could easily have been the cause of the injuries to the top of B.H.’s head. Based on her independent investigation, Sgt. Edwards found probable cause to file criminal charges against Ms. Martin for inflicting injury on B.H. At the time of the hearing, the criminal case was still pending. At the hearing, the Department presented 13 photographs, taken by Ms. Griffin, of B.H.’s injuries. The photos detail multiple sources of trauma and bruising to B.H.’s face, head, back, eyes, neck, and scalp. None of the wounds appeared deep or serious, but did appear to be more severe than the usual bumps and bruises a parent expects from an active child. Ms. Dykes testified that the injuries in the photos were entirely consistent with B.H.’s statements that Ms. Martin caused them by hitting her with a comb, a switch, and a flip- flop. Respondents did not testify. Through cross- examination and argument, Respondents were able to put forward some of their explanations for the injuries to B.H. They contended both that B.H. is inclined to self-harm and that the injuries must have been inflicted at Caverns Learning Center, the day care facility that reported the injuries to the Florida Abuse Hotline. They contended that the child may have hit her head on a dresser while bouncing on her bed. They stated that B.H.’s skin had been rubbed raw by a seat belt. Her scalp injuries may have been caused by a harsh shampoo used to treat for lice, or by self-pulling of her hair, or by undiagnosed folliculitis. Ms. Highsmith theorized that the entire case was fabricated by authorities who did not like the fact that black foster parents were caring for white children. Respondents argued that Mr. Henry did not pursue other theories as to the cause of the injuries. For example, he took employees of Caverns Learning Center at their word when they told him B.H. was injured when she arrived at the day care on the morning of July 16, 2018. They also questioned why approximately two hours passed between B.H.’s arrival at the day care and the call to the Florida Abuse Hotline. Mr. Henry plausibly addressed both issues raised by Respondents. He testified that the Department bases its investigations on the identity of the alleged perpetrator. Because B.H. repeatedly and consistently identified Ms. Martin as the person who inflicted the injuries, Mr. Henry saw no reason to cast about for other suspects. Mr. Henry stated that he did not find it unusual for a busy day care to take a couple of hours to report to the abuse hotline. Respondents did not themselves testify on the advice of their criminal defense attorney. Respondents did present the testimony of their licensing specialist, Kristy Hancock, and a “courtesy” dependency case manager, Precious Ingram.2/ Ms. Hancock testified that she was the instructor for Respondents’ foster home licensing class. Respondents were “very engaged” during the seven weeks of coursework and seemed to understand the implications of being foster parents. Ms. Hancock stated that she had visited Respondents’ home and all seemed well.3/ Ms. Hancock also testified that she was aware of “issues” with Caverns Learning Center, but did not elaborate. Ms. Ingram testified that Respondents were cooperative with her when she made her monthly home visits. She observed nothing that would indicate abuse or neglect. She never saw marks on B.H. resembling those in the photographs introduced by the Department. Ms. Ingram stated that she saw nothing out of the ordinary in Respondents’ foster home and never had cause to raise concerns about the care of the children there. Jeanne Durden is employed by Big Bend Community Based Care (“BBCBC”) and is in charge of BBCBC’s licensing responsibilities. BBCBC is a contractor retained by the Department to provide foster care services in Circuits 2 and 14. BBCBC manages foster care licensing for the cited jurisdictions. Ms. Durden testified that it was her responsibility to provide quality assurance for all foster care licensing operations. BBCBC contracts with other entities to provide front line case management, and Ms. Durden provides oversight for those subcontractors. Ms. Durden testified that she removed all of the minor children from Respondents’ home immediately after reviewing the findings of the child protective investigator and the CPT. Ms. Durden also recommended immediate termination and revocation of Respondents’ foster home license. Ms. Durden explained that her recommendation was due to the nature and findings of the Department’s verified child protection abuse report as well as the criminal charges filed against Ms. Martin. She noted that Department rules do not permit corporal punishment of any kind for foster children, because of the traumas these children have already experienced. Ms. Durden did not believe that anything short of revocation was legally appropriate. She opined that mitigation was not possible based on the nature and cause of B.H.’s injuries. Regina Pleas is safety program manager for the Department’s Northwest Region. Among her duties is management of the Department’s licensing operations. BBCBC has the contractual responsibility to recruit, retain, and manage foster homes, but the Department is ultimately responsible for all decisions and maintains final approval for BBCBC’s licensing actions. Ms. Pleas reviewed Ms. Durden’s recommendation of revocation of Respondent’s foster home license. After considering the nature and cause of the injuries inflicted, the consistency of B.H.’s statements, and the analysis of the CPT, Ms. Pleas concurred that revocation was necessary. In considering the appropriateness of revocation, Ms. Pleas also took into account that Respondents were now subject to a verified abuse report, meaning that the Department could no longer place minor children in their care. Ms. Pleas drafted the letter notifying Respondents of the Department’s decision to revoke their foster home license. The letter, dated September 28, 2018, appropriately notified Respondents of the Department’s intended action and of their due process rights in challenging the Department’s preliminary decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Families revoking the foster home license of Respondents Dawndrell Martin and Mary Highsmith. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) properly denied the application for licensure renewal sought for the group home facility license held by Tracy Court Group Home, owned and operated by V-Agape, LLC.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the licensing and operation of foster care facilities, group home facilities, and residential habitation centers pursuant to section 20.197 and chapter 393, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this complaint, Respondent held foster or group home facility licenses issued by APD. The current group home license issued for V-Agape, LLC, located at 19103 Tracy Court, Lutz, Florida 33548, is owned by Tonya Nelson, the sole managing member. Respondent has contracted with APD to provide the residents with Medicaid waiver developmental disability residential habitation services. HCSO conducts investigations of reports of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and threats of harm to children on behalf of DCF. Investigations of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and threats of harm are initiated by reported incidents through the Florida Abuse Hotline. Karen Gonzalez is the supervisor of the Specialized Investigating Unit. She supervises the CPIs who perform the abuse hotline investigations. Ms. Gonzalez supervised Robert Hoon and Jennifer Campbell, both CPIs. A report was made to the Florida Abuse Hotline on January 24, 2014, that a minor female resident of Respondent’s Tracy Court Group Home sustained bruising and a red mark on the back of her hand from being struck on her hands by Tonya Nelson. The resident is non-verbal and intellectually disabled. The subsequent investigation by CPI Hoon, on behalf of DCF, was ultimately closed with verified indicators for physical injury upon the minor resident living in the Tracy Court Group Home, but did not identify the caregiver responsible. CPI Hoon reviewed and discussed the investigation with Supervisor Gonzalez before he prepared the Investigative Summary (IS). When conducting investigations, the CPI reviews the prior history of incidents reported on a group home and its owner/operator. In subsection “D. Prior Reports and Service Records Implications for Child Safety,” CPI Hoon reported that: There are prior reports on the facility that include concerns for physical discipline in the foster home and to her o[w]n children. There is a verified report in 2012 for physical injury and the aps [adult perpetrators] where [sic] Tonya Nelson and the aunt as it is unknown who caused the injuries. Ms. Gonzalez testified that prior reports are reviewed in conducting their investigations to determine whether a pattern of concern for the health and safety of the children placed in that home and for the caretakers caring for the children in the home exists. The CPIs utilize DCF Operating Procedure (CFOP) 175-28, Child Maltreatment Index, as a guideline in conducting their investigations. A “verified finding” is made when a preponderance of the credible evidence results in a determination that the specific harm or threat of harm was the result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. CPI Campbell explained the application of CFOP during an investigation: [I]t . . . breaks down the different maltreatments that are investigated under the umbrella of abuse, neglect, and abandonment, and it provides a guideline for the definitions of what the different maltreatments are, and the different types of supporting evidence and documents that may be needed when supporting a maltreatment when the investigator comes up with the findings. It’s basically a guideline for investigations, because when a report comes in it may not be just one maltreatment, there may be a number of different maltreatments; or an investigator may identify a maltreatment during the course of an investigation, and so this provides a guideline for the investigator. On May 20, 2014, a report was made to the Florida Abuse Hotline about a minor resident of Respondent’s Tracy Court Group Home. An investigation was commenced concerning unexplained bruises observed on the resident, a vulnerable minor. CPI Campbell completed the investigation and prepared the IS. She discussed the verified findings with Supervisor Gonzalez. CPI Campbell is an experienced investigator, having had 11 years of service with HCSO following five years’ experience as a CPI in Michigan. The report of May 20, 2014, was a “Supplemental” report since, according to Supervisor Gonzalez, it came in right after the initial risk sequence. Rather than creating an entire new report, this one became supplemental to the prior one. The IS stated that the resident had a large bruise on her left thigh and bruises on her left arm and the back of her leg. Ms. Nelson was not able to explain how the minor resident sustained the bruises on her leg and arm. CPI Campbell became involved with Ms. Nelson and the investigation of the group home when Supervisor Gonzalez gave her the task of completing the investigation initiated by CPI Krisita Edwards. At the time CPI Campbell took over the investigation, CPI Edwards had been assigned to other duties. CPI Campbell explained that it was not unusual for a second investigator to complete work begun by another since all their notes are kept on a central database known as the Florida Safe Families Network (FSFN), where all contacts are noted, as well as the investigative summary. CPIs Edwards and Campbell collaborated on the investigation in this case. CPI Edwards entered her initial findings in the FSFN, which was picked up and continued by CPI Campbell when she took over the case. The two CPIs have collaborated on other cases in a similar fashion. The initial documentation by CPI Edwards was performed within 48 hours of the call coming into the abuse hotline as required. CPI Campbell’s completion of the report and investigation occurred after she had spoken with CPI Edwards and discussed the matter with Supervisor Gonzalez. The result of the investigation concerning the bruises on the minor resident was that the bruises were “indeterminate for physical abuse” and “indeterminate for supervisory neglect” due to the fact that a specific cause of the injuries could not be determined. Further, since the minor resident had been removed to another group home, the report concluded that there existed no continuing threat to the resident’s well-being. Even though the resident had been removed from the Tracy Court Group Home and, therefore, was not in any danger of being further harmed, CPI Campbell continued to have serious concerns about the care of residents in the group home. She believed that several allegations of the same type of harm were being made in the group home and that they could not ask the resident how she received her injuries since she was non-verbal. Myra Leitold, an APD residential licensing supervisor, had monitored the Tracy Court Group Home for the previous nine and one-half years. On December 28, 2012, she observed that a door lock to the office and bedroom was keyed so that it could be readily opened from the inside which, she believed, created a safety hazard. Between December 2012 and August 2014, the group home was cited for ten violations of Medication Administration Procedures. On one of her visits, in December 2012, Ms. Leitold noted that no current prescription was present for one of the residents, and that the label on the prescription bottle did not match the prescription drugs inside the bottle. Additionally, she found that the accounting for one of the resident’s finances was not current and that the temperature inside the group home was a chilly 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Mitchell Turner, human services program specialist for APD, recorded numerous medication administration violations at the group home. He noted on May 30, 2013, that the medication prescriptions and instructions for the Medical Administration Record (MAR) did not match. On June 18, 2013, he discovered that the wrong dosage of prescription was being given to a resident, and Ms. Nelson admitted this mistake. Mr. Turner grew so concerned about the prescription irregularities that he requested Pamela Lassiter, a medical case management registered nurse, to review the group home. Nurse Lassiter was sent to the home where she discovered and cited the home for three additional prescription violations. Even following Nurse Lassiter’s visit, on another trip to the group home on April 9, 2014, Mr. Turner cited an additional MAR violation. He believed these violations posed a health and safety risk to the residents affected and exhibited a pattern of neglect by Respondent to the health and safety of vulnerable children. During the period when prescription and other violations were noted, on January 11, 2013, Ms. Nelson exceeded the maximum licensed capacity of three in the group home when she accepted a fourth resident. She did not have prior written approval from APD to exceed her licensed capacity of residents. On September 25, 2013, Mr. Turner issued a Notice of Non-Compliance (NNC) because Ms. Nelson again exceeded the licensed capacity for the number of residents in the group home without prior written approval from APD. Mr. Turner expressed his concerns over the repeated violations by Respondent. Ms. Nelson testified that she had received verbal approval for the placements in excess of the home’s licensed capacity from Meisha Stewart, residential placement coordinator for APD, and that on a prior occasion in 2012, she had accepted a resident after receiving verbal approval. This testimony was rebutted by both Geraldine Williams, the former regional operations manager for APD’s Suncoast Region, and Ms. Leitold, who testified she had never known APD to give verbal approval for a placement of a resident in a group home. With the high volume of referrals APD makes to group homes, they cannot operate in a system where verbal placements occur. All placements must be made in writing. When a provider receives a NNC, the provider is required to submit and successfully complete a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). Mr. Turner testified that Ms. Nelson did not submit or successfully complete a CAP for the MAR violations. On January 17, 2013, Ms. Leitold visited the group home and observed the following violations: volatile materials were not stored in approved metal containers and three prescriptions for a resident’s medications were not present. The gasoline, charcoal, and lighter fluid found by Ms. Leitold were required to be stored in approved metal containers. Keeping these materials in the open posed a safety hazard for the minor residents by giving them access to volatile materials. On November 4, 2014, Ms. Nelson sent an email to Meisha Stewart advising her she intended to accept a non-APD client for placement in the Tracy Court Group Home without APD’s prior approval. Ms. Nelson testified that since that same resident had been placed in the Tracy Court Group Home for a six-month period in 2013, she believed she did not need a new approval in 2014.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying V-Agape, LLC, d/b/a Tracy Court Group Home’s application for license renewal. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 6th day of November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Lindsey Ann West, Esquire The Plante Law Group, PLC 806 North Armenia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 (eServed) Gerald D. Siebens, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 1313 North Tampa Street, Suite 515 Tampa, Florida 33602-3328 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Executive Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) David De La Paz, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents' application for re-licensure of their therapeutic foster home should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents have operated a licensed foster home since 1994 and have operated a therapeutic foster home since 2011. The Respondents' foster home was originally licensed under the supervision of Lee County Mental Health Center, which was the local agency responsible for placing children in the home. In 2009, responsibility for supervision of the home was transferred to "Florida MENTOR" (MENTOR), which also assumed the responsibility for placement of children in the home. The children placed in the Respondents' foster home have been between eight and 11 years of age. Children placed in therapeutic foster homes have significant special needs and can be emotionally unstable. A safe and supportive therapeutic environment is required for their protection. The Respondents' license was valid through September 30, 2011. On August 3, 2011, the Respondents applied for renewal of the license. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-13.027 requires that changes in a licensee's household composition or employment be reported within 48 hours of the event. When the application was filed, the Respondents disclosed that their adult daughter and her three children had been residing with them for approximately three weeks. Prior to the application, the Respondents had not advised MENTOR that there had been any change in household composition. Mr. Williams became unemployed in December 2010, but the Respondents failed to report the change in the employment prior to filing the application. MENTOR was concerned about the financial stability of the household due to additional residents in the home and the reduction in income related to the loss of Mr. Williams' employment. An applicant for re-licensure of a foster home is required to submit financial information sufficient to establish that the applicant has the resources required to provide a stable household and meet basic expenses. The financial information initially submitted by the Respondents with the application for re-licensure was incomplete and did not appear to be an accurate reflection of household expenses. Attempts by MENTOR to obtain additional information were resisted by Ms. Williams. MENTOR eventually determined that, although the household had sufficient income to support their own expenses, placement of a foster child into the Respondents' home would cause a financial hardship for the family. Foster parents are permitted, with approval of the supervising agency, to add payments received to board a foster child to their income calculation, but the Respondents have not obtained such approval. By the time of the hearing, the Williams' adult daughter and her children no longer resided in the home, but Mr. Williams remained unemployed and was selling scrap metal to obtain income. At the hearing, he testified that his scrap metal income had been declining as more unemployed people began to collect and resell scrap. In September 2011, MENTOR completed the re-licensing study, a 24-page document that outlines the history of the foster home, including abuse reports and licensing deficiencies, and the efforts of the licensee to correct such issues. Rule 65C-13.028(3)(i)2. requires that the re-licensing study include documentation related to the level of cooperation by the licensee with the case plans developed for the child placed in the foster home. The re-licensing study documented MENTOR's concerns about the physical safety of children residing in the home and the Respondents' willingness and ability to provide appropriate support to therapeutic foster children placed in the home. During a significant period in 2011, the Respondents maintained a collection of junk metal and other debris in the yard of the foster home. The junk was apparently being collected by Mr. Williams for sale to scrap dealers. Jodi Koch, a MENTOR therapist who was assigned to work with the children in the Respondents' home, testified at the hearing about her observations of conditions in the home and about her interactions with the Respondents. In November 2010, Ms. Koch observed a child begin to play with a rusty machete that the child discovered in the Respondents' yard, and she so advised Ms. Williams, who expressed her displeasure that Ms. Koch had exceeded her authority as a therapist. Ms. Koch reported her observation to MENTOR personnel. MENTOR officials, including the program director and re-licensing coordinator, discussed the unsafe conditions of the property with the Respondents. Suggestions that the Respondents relocate the debris or otherwise prevent access by children to the debris were initially ignored by the Respondents. On May 2, 2011, MENTOR issued a Written Notice of Violation (Notice) to the Respondents, documenting the hazardous conditions of the property. The Notice was hand-delivered on May 5, 2011, at which time the Respondents refused to read or sign the paper. On May 6, 2011, the Lee County Code Enforcement Authority issued a nuisance citation against the Respondents for the accumulation of junk and debris on their property. The violation was cured on May 13, 2011, but, on June 1, 2011, the Lee County Code Enforcement Authority issued a second nuisance citation for the same violation. That violation was not resolved until November 2011, after the Lee County Code Enforcement Authority had prosecuted the violation through a hearing, and more than a year after Ms. Koch observed the child with the machete. At the hearing, Ms. Williams asserted that Ms. Koch was a therapist and that she had exceeded her authority by reporting the observations of the property to the MENTOR officials, essentially the same position Ms. Williams asserted in 2011 when Ms. Koch reported the situation to MENTOR. The MENTOR re-licensing study also documented the failure of the Respondents to cooperate in therapeutic plans developed for the children placed in the home and to supervise the children properly. Ms. Williams often refused to cooperate with the therapeutic plans and goals Ms. Koch developed for the children in the Respondents' foster home. Ms. Williams apparently concluded that she was better able to address the needs of a therapeutic foster child than was Ms. Koch, but the evidence failed to support such a conclusion. Ms. Williams refused to implement standard behavioral therapies suggested by Ms. Koch and opined that they were a "waste of her time." Ms. Williams refused to allow one foster child to have toys purchased for the child by Ms. Koch. Ms. Williams claimed that the child would have destroyed the toys, but Ms. Koch testified they had been purchased to allow the child to have her own possessions for the first time in the child's life and to develop a sense of responsibility. The Respondents routinely put children to bed at an early hour as a means of discipline and refused to comply with Ms. Koch's direction to develop other disciplinary practices. In one discussion with Ms. Koch at the home, Ms. Williams discussed the circumstances of one foster child in the presence of another foster child, violating the confidentiality of the children. The Respondents failed to contact MENTOR staff to address behavioral issues exhibited by children placed in the home and instead called upon law enforcement authorities to respond when a child refused to comply with their directions. The Respondents failed to supervise one child placed in their home sufficiently to prevent the child from accessing pay- per-view pornography on cable television, resulting in a charge in excess of $700 on one bill. It was clear, based on Ms. Williams' testimony and demeanor at the hearing, that Ms. Williams disliked Ms. Koch. Much of Ms. Williams' presentation of evidence during the February 17 portion of the hearing was directed towards discrediting MENTOR and Ms. Koch. After completing the re-licensing study, MENTOR forwarded the application and study to the Department, which received the materials on October 5, 2011. Notwithstanding the continuing problems between MENTOR and the Respondents, MENTOR recommended in the study that the Respondents' home be conditionally re-licensed. The conditions, essentially intended to increase the possibility that the Department would approve the application for re-licensure, were as follows: Reduction in the licensed capacity from two therapeutic individuals to one therapeutic individual. Unannounced visits to monitor the home in terms of food content, refrigerator temperature, client supervision and safety concerns. Continuing monitoring of the foster parents ability to work in conjunction with service providers regarding the best interests of the child. Monitoring to ensure that the living situation of the additional four residents was resolved within six months. Ms. Williams was dissatisfied with the results of the study, disagreed with the proposed conditions, and refused to accept them. While MENTOR (as the supervising agency) was responsible for the evaluation of the application, the Department has the responsibility for the making the final determination regarding licensure or re-licensure of a foster home. The Department considered the MENTOR recommendation when making the licensing decision. The primary focus of the Department's decision was whether the Respondents could provide an appropriate and safe environment for a therapeutic foster placement. The Department has no financial interest in the decision and had no direct contact with the Respondents. As the regional licensing manager for the Department, Kristine Emden was tasked with the responsibility of reviewing the application and materials. Based on her review, Ms. Emden determined that the application should be denied. Ms. Emden based her decision on the Respondents' lack of cooperation with therapeutic programs developed for the children in their care, their failure to supervise children adequately or to maintain confidentiality regarding the children, and their lack of cooperation with the MENTOR personnel who attempted to resolve the identified deficiencies. Additionally, Ms. Emden considered the Respondents' response to issues related to the hazardous conditions of the premises, the lack of financial resources to support a therapeutic foster placement in the home, and the rejection of conditions proposed by MENTOR in the study. Ms. Emden was unable to identify any remedial measures that would alter the denial of the application for re-licensure. The Respondents failed to offer credible evidence to establish that the Department's denial of the application was incorrect or that the application should otherwise be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the license application filed by the Respondents at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of July, 2012.
The Issue May the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) revoke Respondent's foster home license for violating Section 409.175 (8)(b) 1., Florida Statutes, in that Respondent intentionally or negligently committed acts that materially affected the health and safety of children, to-wit: inadequate supervision of a minor child entrusted to her care?
Findings Of Fact R.G. is the biological mother of the infant female, A.G., born out of wedlock. R.G. gave birth to a male child before A.G. That son was taken away from R.G. by DCF. Both A.G. and R.G., while R.G. was yet a minor under the age of 18 years, were adjudicated dependent children, subject to placement by DCF, pending DNA testing of A.G. and two putative fathers. R.G. had been placed with a licensed foster home other than Respondent's licensed foster home. That home requested R.G.'s removal because R.G. would not follow its rules. R.G. with A.G., was then placed in the licensed foster care home of Respondent. Although the placement of A.G. with Respondent raised Respondent's home population to one more live foster child than Respondent's licensed capacity, a situation to which Respondent objected, DCF personnel informed Respondent that the infant A.G. would be counted as part of R.G.'s placement. Therefore, despite A.G. and R.G. being two separate persons, DCF would not consider Respondent to have exceeded her license's capacity. It was not explained on the record how DCF intended to pay board to Respondent for care of A.G., if A.G. were not considered a whole person, but it is clear that DCF personnel resented Respondent's asking how she would be compensated for A.G.'s care. At all times material, R.G. and A.G. were subject to a Circuit Court Order which permitted only "unsupervised day visitation" by R.G. with A.G. (Emphasis in the original). By implication of the Circuit Court Order, and by her own understanding from instructions by DCF personnel, Respondent knew that R.G., the minor mother, was not permitted to have unsupervised night visitation with the dependent infant, A.G. DCF's and Respondent's understanding of the Circuit Court Order was that Respondent, R.G., and A.G. were required to be in Respondent's home after dark, but Respondent was not required to "eyeball" R.G. and A.G. all night, every night, while they were present in Respondent's foster home. Gracie Rager, DCF foster care worker, authorized Respondent to allow R.G. to take A.G. out of Respondent's foster home during the day for unsupervised visitation. Ms. Rager also authorized Respondent to allow R.G. to take A.G. to R.G.'s older natural sister's home to spend some nights, including weekends. R.G.'s older natural sister was married and licensed for foster care. Accordingly, DCF personnel, including Ms. Rager, presumed that the older sister was sufficiently responsible and qualified to provide supervision of R.G. and A.G. at night. DCF reasonably concluded that R.G.'s presence with A.G. in her sister's home at night would constitute supervised night visitation and comply with the Court's Order. Ms. Rager never authorized Respondent to allow R.G. to take A.G. out at night by herself, but Ms. Rager reasonably saw no impediment, including the Circuit Court Order, to R.G. taking A.G. with her anywhere she wanted to take the baby during the day. R.G. openly resented being placed with Respondent because Respondent is Black. R.G. wanted to return, with A.G., to a white foster home placement. As a result, R.G. was never cooperative with Respondent. When R.G. turned 18 years of age, she became openly defiant of Respondent. R.G. insisted that she alone, would do everything for A.G., who was still under two years old. R.G. refused all assistance from Respondent concerning A.G. Respondent asked DCF to remove R.G. and A.G. or at least A.G., from her foster home. DCF had no other placement for them and asked Respondent to keep them until another placement was found. R.G. had a part-time day job. To get there, she would "catch a ride" with others. She would not accept a ride from Respondent. Sometimes, R.G. would take A.G. with her to work and go directly from work, with A.G., to her older, licensed sister's home. On these occasions, R.G. and A.G. might be gone for a night or a weekend. When R.G. did not return to Respondent's foster home, Respondent sometimes called R.G.'s older, licensed sister's home to be sure that R.G. and A.G. had arrived there safely. Sometimes, Respondent asked this sister to call her when R.G. and A.G. arrived. However, Respondent did not always contact R.G.'s older, licensed sister or otherwise check-up on R.G.'s and A.G.'s whereabouts overnight or over a weekend. When R.G. and A.G. returned after a night or weekend away, Respondent did not always check up on where they had been. Respondent was under the impression that a different, adult sister of R.G.'s was also a suitable adult supervisor for after dark, even though that sister was not licensed for foster care. Indeed, there is nothing in the Circuit Court Order requiring that supervised night-time visitation of R.G. with A.G. could not be undertaken by any other adult, regardless of whether that person were licensed for foster care. Respondent never checked to see if R.G. and A.G. were with R.G.'s unlicensed sister. At no time did Respondent report to law enforcement or DCF that R.G. had gone off and failed to return or that R.G. was taking A.G. away on weekends. At some point, R.G.'s authorized and licensed older sister called Ms. Rager and said R.G. had taken A.G. out all night with R.G.'s boyfriend and had not returned. It is unclear from Ms. Rager's testimony whether R.G.'s and A.G.'s departure point for their night or weekend of unsupervised visitation was Respondent's home or R.G.'s licensed sister's home. On February 9, 2001, Ms. Page, a DCF protective investigator, responded to an abuse hotline call and met with Respondent in the lobby of a DCF facility. During her interview of Respondent, Ms. Page knew nothing of where either R.G. or A.G. had been picked up, or how long they had been unsupervised at night, but Ms. Page "understood" from Ms. Rager that R.G. and A.G. had been removed from Respondent's home and that Respondent had come to the DCF facility voluntarily. Ms. Page was particularly concerned because of a comment Respondent made in the course of this interview, to the effect that Respondent guessed she had "handled it all wrong" because she had only asked to have the baby, A.G., removed from her care instead of reporting R.G.'s rebelliousness. DCF Investigator Page testified that she "verified" in an abuse report that Respondent was guilty of neglect by failure to notify authorities of R.G.'s unsupervised night visitation with A.G. There is insufficient evidence to determine of Respondent ever had a chance to challenge the abuse report or if the report was ever "confirmed." There is no evidence R.G. or A.G. suffered harm as a result of this incident.
Recommendation 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 dismissing charges against Respondent and restoring her foster care license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: David West, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Dr. James Brant, Qualified Representative 1140 Durkee Drive, North Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Cheryl Smith Post Office Box 1053 Lake City, Florida 32056 Virginia A. 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 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing is whether Respondent's foster care license should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact On July 1, 1995, Mildred Sands (Respondent) was issued a provisional foster home license by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Petitioner), with an effective period of July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996. Her license number is 0795-06-3. A provisional license is issued when all requirements for a license are not met and the licensee is given a specific time period to comply with the remaining requirements. Due to a court action involving a minor child, J. F., who was born on May 7, 1983, the court placed J. F. with Respondent. In order for the minor child to live with Respondent, Petitioner issued Respondent a provisional license. Prior to the placement, Respondent knew J. F.'s mother for several years on a personal basis. The mother and her children were at one time living with Respondent. Respondent is J. F.'s godmother and has interacted with her since J. F.'s birth. Prior to licensing, on June 12, 1995, Respondent signed a "Bilateral Service Agreement" (Bilateral Agreement) with Petitioner, agreeing to abide by or with several conditions. The Bilateral Agreement provides in pertinent part: 2. We are fully and directly responsible to the Department for the care of the child. * * * 8. We will accept dependent children into our home for care only from the Department and will make no plans for boarding other children or adults. We will notify the Department if any adult relative or family members returns to live in the home. * * * 10. We will notify the Department immediately of any change in our address, employment, living arrangements, arrest record, health status or family composition, as well as any special needs for the child (i.e. health, school problems, emotional problems). * * * 16. We will comply with all requirements for a licensed foster home as prescribed by the Department. * * * 18. We understand that any breach of the Agreement may result in the immediate removal of the child(ren) and revocation of the license. Respondent signed a "Discipline Policy Agreement" (Discipline Agreement) on July 19, 1993, when she was initially licensed as a foster care provider and on June 12, 1995, during her re-licensure process. The Discipline Agreement signed on July 19, 1993, provides in pertinent part: The following disciplinary practices are FORBIDDEN in caring for your foster child. Failure to comply may result in an investigation and possible closure of your home. * * * Hitting a child with an object. Slapping or spanking a child, or ANY OTHER physical discipline. The Discipline Agreement signed on June 12, 1995, provides in pertinent part: [T]he following disciplinary practices are FORBIDDEN on our children. FAILURE OF THE FOSTER PARENT(S)... TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF THE CHILD(REN) FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND RESULT IN THE CLOSURE OF YOUR HOME. * * * Hitting a child with ANY object. Slapping, smacking, whipping, washing mouth out with soap, or ANY other form of physical discipline. On February 14, 1995, Petitioner waived placement requirements in order for J. F.'s siblings to be placed with Respondent to keep the family unit together. J. F.'s siblings had been living with her grandmother who had become ill and was unable to care for the children. On September 1, 1995, Petitioner received a report of alleged child abuse allegedly committed by Respondent against J. F., who was 12 years old, at Respondent's foster home. Respondent was allegedly disciplining J. F. Within a short span of time that same day, Petitioner began an investigation. The minor child, J. F., had raised bruises, swelling, abrasions, and redness on the lower part of her legs. Also, J. F. had a small scratch on one of her legs and a scratch on her left arm. The injuries were purportedly inflicted by a ruler. No expert opinion was presented to confirm that the injuries were consistent with such an instrument, and no attempt was made to obtain the instrument used to commit the alleged abuse. Petitioner removed all the children from Respondent's home. Petitioner notified Respondent that it was revoking her foster home license due to the alleged excessive corporal punishment. The minor child, J. F., did not testify at the hearing. 1/ Respondent did not inflict the injuries to the minor child, J. F. 2/ Respondent did not use corporal punishment of any kind on the minor child, J. F. Respondent did not violate the Discipline Agreement. Respondent was responsible for the supervision and care of the minor child, J. F. Respondent was not aware of J. F.'s injuries and was, therefore, unable to notify Petitioner of the injuries or to obtain medical attention for J. F.'s injuries. Respondent had allowed the children's adult sibling, who was 19 years old, to live with her and the children. Respondent failed to notify Petitioner that the adult sister would be and was living in her home. In failing to notify Petitioner, Respondent violated the Bilateral Agreement, paragraph numbered 8.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the foster home license of Mildred Sands not be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1996.
The Issue As originally framed, the issue was whether respondents' foster home license should be revoked for alleged failure to cooperate with HRS policy and personnel.
Findings Of Fact As part of the settlement agreement, HRS abandoned any effort to prove the factual allegations which gave rise to these proceedings.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS enter a final order rescinding its letter of July 10, 1991, to Mr. and Mrs. William Scarff, with the understandings and conditions recited above. DONE and ENTERED this 23 day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire 1000 NE 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 William and Mary Scarff 8281 Weeping Willow Street Brooksville, FL 34613 ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23 day of January, 1992. John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner a standard developmental disability group home license because her facility is a "mobile home" as defined in Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner decided that she wanted to operate a group home for developmentally disabled clients. She wanted to locate the home on property that she owns at 630 South East 10th Street, Williston, Florida. Petitioner conferred with Respondent's staff before deciding whether to construct a site-built home or an off-site built home on the property. Respondent's licensing specialist referred Petitioner to Respondent's fire inspector. Respondent's fire inspector recommended that Petitioner consider using a Palm Harbor Home with certain improvements to the windows, floors, and roof. Specifically, the improvement included special strengthened roofing, special strengthened flooring, wallboard rather than plastic walls, fire alarms and detectors in every room, as well as wider windows. Petitioner decided to buy a four-bedroom/two-bath unit with over 2,000 square feet from Palm Harbor Homes. The home was manufactured by Palm Harbor Homes at its Plant City, Florida, factory in 2001. Each section of the home had a seal certifying that it was built in compliance with the Federated Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard Act. With the upgrades that Petitioner requested, the home cost Petitioner approximately $80,000. The home complies with or exceeds the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development standards. Petitioner took the house plans and pictures of the home to Respondent's licensing specialist who approved the home. The supervisor of the licensing specialist concurred because he was under the impression that the home was a "Jim Walter-type" modular home that met the criteria for group homes. Petitioner's fire inspector also approved the home. The fire inspector concluded that the home meets the high standards of the 2001 Fire Protection Code. In the meantime, Petitioner followed through with completing the paperwork for her application. Petitioner, with the help of Respondent's staff, proceeded to develop the required budget and paperwork for a Medicaid waiver. Petitioner's licensing specialist and fire inspector approved Petitioner's home, finding that it was suitable as a group home. Respondent granted Petitioner a conditional license on June 1, 2001. This license allowed Petitioner to operate for six months. In July 2001, Petitioner's first client moved in the home. Petitioner received several more client referrals. In September 2001, a second licensing specialist inspected Petitioner's group home. The second licensing specialist, who was not involved in issuing Petitioner's conditional license, conducted the routine inspection in anticipation of Petitioner receiving a standard developmentally disabled group home license. The licensing specialist concluded that the home was in fact a "mobile home," which cannot qualify as an approved structure for a group home. The licensing specialist took pictures of the home and of the State of Florida Installation Certification Label attached to the home. This label certifies as follows: [T]hat the installation of this mobile home to be in accordance with Florida Statutes 320.8249, 320.8325 and Rules of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle Construction. Respondent's staff sought clarification from Respondent's headquarters regarding the status of Petitioner's home. By letter dated September 18, 2001, Respondent advised Petitioner that "mobile homes" as defined by Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes, shall not be used for group home facilities. Respondent did not issue a standard license to the Petitioner. Petitioner's home, although a very high quality "manufactured home," still is a type of mobile home under Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's home meets all other licensing standards for developmental disability group homes except for the standard at issue in this case. On or about December 20, 2001, Respondent's district office staff requested a one-year waiver for Petitioner's group home. The written request indicates that Respondent's staff intended to seek a waiver for this home annually until a proposed rule allowing licensing of manufactured homes was promulgated. Respondent granted Petitioner the waiver on or about January 8, 2001. The waiver is valid through the 2002 licensure period. However, there is no guarantee that the Department headquarters will always grant the waiver.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner a standard developmental disability group home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel Mutch, Esquire Mutch & Brigham, P.A. 2114 Northwest 40th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32605 Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 393.0673(1), Florida Statutes (2018), Respondent, which holds a license to operate a group home facility, was identified in a verified report by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) as the perpetrator of exploitation of a vulnerable adult, failed to disclose on a renewal application a perpetrator of "the . . . abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult" (Maltreatment),1 and allowed a new employee to begin working at the group home before completing all of the background screening requirements; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, as authorized by the License, Respondent, a Florida not-for-profit corporation, has provided services to intellectually disabled persons residing at the Group Home. At all material times, Respondent's directors have been Etha Griffith, her daughter Kim Griffith, and Francis Griffith. The record does not disclose if Respondent has any members. Etha Griffith, who is 79 years old, serves as an officer and the onsite manager of the group home, for which Kim Griffith and Francis Griffith serve as the backup managers or supervisors of the Group Home. Petitioner presented no admissible evidence in support of Count I. Prominent among the excluded evidence is the Verified Report, as to which Petitioner failed to demonstrate its relevance, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, or its authenticity, given that it is unsigned and bears other indicia of an investigation that, although closed, was never completed.5 In support of Count II, Petitioner introduced the Application,6 which was filed on November 12, 2018. Etha Griffith7 completed the Application by providing the information requested on Petitioner's application form, which serves a natural person or legal entity who or that is an applicant or licensee seeking the issuance or renewal of a group home facility license (Application Form). Etha Griffith signed the Application as Respondent's designated representative, and her signature was notarized on November 8, 2018. The Application states the answer, "no," to the question posed in Section V, Item 2: "Have you or ownership controlling entity affiliated with this application ever been identified as responsible for the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child or the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult?" For several reasons, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the material facts in support of Count II. First, "no" was correct because the question refers to a determination, not allegation, of Maltreatment. The Application Form does not define "identified," whose common meaning is not "alleged," but "established,"8 such as after a completed investigation. As explained in endnote 5, the evidence fails to establish that DCF determined that Etha Griffith is the perpetrator of Maltreatment. Second, even if there had been a determination of Maltreatment in the Verified Report by November 12, 2018, "no" was not a willful or intentional misstatement or a false statement because neither Etha Griffith nor any other agent of Respondent knew about the Verified Report or DCF's determination of Maltreatment--and not for a lack of inquiry. Aware that an investigation had taken place during the summer of 2018, in October 2018, Kim Griffith contacted the DCF protective investigator who had conducted the investigation and asked for any findings. The investigator returned to her, not the Verified Report, but a Notice of Conclusion, stating only that the investigation was "complete" and "closed," and DCF had recommended no additional services. Etha Griffith has never received a copy of the Verified Report. No agent of Respondent knew anything about the Verified Report until preparing for the hearing in this case. On these facts, Etha Griffith and Respondent's other agents had no reason to think, as of November 12, 2018, that DCF had determined that Etha Griffith had perpetrated Maltreatment. Third, even if, by November 12, 2018, Etha Griffith were aware that DCF had determined that she had perpetrated Maltreatment, the failure to disclose this fact or the Verified Report was not material. An audit of the Group Home by Petitioner led to DCF's protective investigation, and the findings of the protective investigation, such as they were,9 implied that any misappropriation involved substantially smaller sums than those specified in the audit.10 Knowledge of the audit findings would thus include knowledge of the protective investigation findings. Fourth, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, "no" is correct because, in the question posed in Section V, Item 2, "you" refers to the applicant or licensee, and "ownership controlling entity affiliated with this application" does not effectively refer to Etha Griffith. The Application Form does not define these terms. Items 1, 3, and 4 also contain questions posed to "you." The questions in Items 1 and 3 alternatively address a "controlling entity affiliated with this application," so, except for dropping "ownership," the questions in Items 1 and 3 are directed to the same addressee as is the question in Item 2. The question in Item 4 is directed only to "you." All four of these items frame questions seeking potentially important information about past license discipline and adverse action involving the Medicaid and Medicare programs.11 Judging from her testimony at the hearing, Etha Griffith possesses modest language skills. Given the level of analysis required to determine the meaning of "you" and "ownership controlled entity affiliated with this application," Etha Griffith could not possibly have understood that the question in Section V, Item 2 addressed her. The two key issues in Count III are whether Ms. Meliard was an employee or a covered volunteer, as defined in the Conclusions of Law, and, if so, whether she had completed her local screening. Ms. Meliard did not testify, nor did Petitioner direct any questions to Kim Griffith as to Count III. Petitioner's investigator testified that, upon his unannounced arrival at the Group Home at 2:05 p.m. on January 1, 2019, he found Ms. Meliard "seated in a chair by the front window," presumably in a common area of the house, such as a living room. Tr., p. 63. Ms. Meliard was alone in the Group Home, as the residents typically returned from their day programs around 3:00 p.m. Tr., p. 63. On the investigator's arrival, Ms. Meliard called Etha Griffith, who arrived at the Group Home very shortly after the call. Tr., p. 64. On her arrival, Etha Griffith told the investigator that she was "trying to give [Ms. Meliard] a job." Tr., p. 64. The testimony recited in this paragraph is credited. Petitioner's witnesses were in conflict as to the screening that Ms. Meliard had cleared. Petitioner's operations management consultant testified that Ms. Meliard had not cleared level 1 or 2 screening. Tr., p. 44. Petitioner's investigator testified to the same effect, but immediately corrected himself by saying that she had cleared Level 2 screening, but not local screening. Tr., pp. 65-66. Petitioner is unable to produce documentary evidence of screenings because this material is confidential, even in hearings of this type, according to Petitioner's counsel. Tr., p. 46. When asked if Ms. Meliard had cleared her level 2 screening, Etha Griffith testified, "That is the one we got, yeah." Tr., p. 95. No one asked Etha Griffith directly if Ms. Meliard had not yet passed her local screening. In a clear-and-convincing case, no finding is possible based on the negative implication inherent in Etha Griffith's statement. Her modest communication skills and laconic communication style betray a lack of mental acuity, so no inference is possible by Etha Griffin's use of the definite article, "the." A personnel file, which may be opened for a candidate for employment, typically contains evidence of a local screening, which comprises an inquiry to the relevant local law enforcement agency and a response from the agency. Tr., p. 83. Proof of a failure to obtain a local screening thus depends on a negative-- the absence of documentation in the personnel file. Unable to recall clearly whether he had seen evidence of a level 2 screening, Petitioner's investigator testified that he recalled not seeing evidence in Ms. Meliard's personnel file of clearing the local screening. Tr., p. 83. The testimony on the issues of employment and local screening is too vague and uncertain to support findings by clear and convincing evidence that, on January 10, 2019, Ms. Meliard was employed by Respondent and had not passed her local screening. The investigator presented himself as exceptionally capable and articulate, but nothing in the record suggests that he investigated with any diligence the employment or local screening issues involving Ms. Meliard.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of all counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of November, 2019.
