The Issue Whether Respondents should be granted a family foster home license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Alfonso and Lynda Zapata, applied to be licensed as a family foster home care with the Department through the Devereux Foundation. The Devereux Foundation maintains a network of foster homes to serve parents who need to temporarily place their children in foster care (private placements) and dependent children in the custody of the Department (public placements). Previously, Petitioners had been licensed as a family foster care home with the Department through Florida Baptist Children's Home (Florida Baptist). Like the Devereux Foundation, Florida Baptist maintains a network of foster homes to serve parents who need to temporarily place their children in foster care and dependent children in the custody of the Department. Petitioners had withdrawn form the relationship with Florida Baptist after a disagreement with Florida Baptist personnel over the removal of a child from their home and reunification of that child with her mother. In 2001, about half of the children placed in Florida Baptist's homes were placed by the Department in connection with cases of child abuse, or abandonment, while the other half were private placements by families whose circumstances necessitated that their children temporarily reside elsewhere. In July 2001, Petitioners had two foster children living in their home. One of these children, T.D., also known as J., had been placed in the Petitioner's home by the Department. The other, C.R., a three-month-old boy, had been privately placed in the home by Florida Baptist at the request of the child's mother, E.R., who was single. E.R. had placed her child in Florida Baptist care because she had enlisted in the United States Army and was undergoing basic training out of state. E.R. had enlisted in order to provide her family a better life. It was initially anticipated that E.R. would be gone six months, but due to injuries sustained during basic training, she was actually gone for eight or nine months. There was no evidence of abuse, neglect or abandonment on E.R.'s part. During C.R.'s stay, Petitioners developed a negative impression of E.R. They did not think that E.R. called or wrote frequently enough. Petitioners had commented to Florida Baptist staff that E.R. was an unfit mother, that Petitioners provided C.R. with a better home than E.R. could, that E.R. did not love C.R., and that Petitioners could love C.R. more than E.R. could. Petitioners' opinion was based on their belief that no really good mother would take a job which required her to be away from her child for extended periods and a belief that C.R.'s grandmother was physically abusive towards C.R. Unfortunately, Petitioners let their beliefs about appropriate parenting interfere in their duties as foster parents to aid in reunification of a child with that child's legal parents. Florida Baptist staff also believed that Petitioners had become too attached to C.R., which caused them to attempt to undermine the Department's later attempts to reunify mother and child at the planned time E.R. would return from basic training and be able to provide a home to C.R. In late July 2001, Florida Baptist staff also became concerned about other behavior exhibited by Petitioners involving confidentiality issues and concerned that the Department had removed T.D. (aka "J.") from Petitioners' home. The behavior concerning confidentiality arose because Mrs. Zapata had discussed the fitness of E.R. to be C.R.'s custodial parent with a Department employee. C.R. was not a Department placement. However, it should be noted that the discussion was with a Department employee involved in the fostering program. Such an employee could reasonably be viewed as a person to report any suspected abuse or neglect to. In this instance, the conversation did not involve a report of abuse or neglect, but concerned Petitioners' belief that E.R. was not a good mother. On the other hand, the evidence was unclear whether the same confidentiality requirements regarding public placements by the Department appertain to private placements by the parents. The incident does cast doubt on Petitioners' awareness and desire to comply with privacy considerations should they be licensed by the Department. During the month of July 2001, T.D., also known as "J.", lived in Petitioner's home. T.D. was a little less than a year old at the time and had been placed in Petitioner's home by the Department because of ongoing juvenile dependency proceedings. On July 31 or August 1, 2001, the Department counselor, Wendy Cheney, picked T.D. up at Petitioner's home to take him to a doctor's appointment. Ms. Cheney noticed that there were crumbs and dirt in the car seat in which Petitioners had placed T.D. Ms. Cheney also noticed that T.D.'s clothes and diaper bag had a strong odor of spoiled milk. A crust also appeared on the nipple of the baby bottle and the eye medicine bottle Mrs. Zapata gave her to take with T.D. to the physician's appointment. During the preceding month, Ms. Cheney had visited Petitioners' home on at least a weekly basis to monitor T.D.'s situation. On many of these occasions, Ms. Cheney also observed that T.D.'s clothes had the same sour milk smell she experienced during the doctor's appointment. She also noticed during these visits that the nipples of T.D.'s baby bottles were not properly covered. On one occasion, Ms. Cheney saw T.D. drop his pacifier and then observed Mrs. Zapata pick it up and replace it in T.D.'s mouth without washing it off. This is of particular concern, as Petitioners had a long-haired dog whose hair was apparent on the floor of Petitioners' home. The Department removed T.D. from Petitioners' home because of these observations. Again, these observations cast serious doubt on the quality of hygienic care provided by Petitioners to foster children. There was no evidence offered to contradict the apparent lack of good hygienic care provided to T.D. However, there was also no evidence that Petitioners' care of T.D. constituted neglect or abuse of T.D., since a finding of neglect or abuse requires demonstration of harm or significantly dangerous conditions. Because of these concerns, Florida Baptist staff agreed that C.R. should be removed from Petitioners' home at least until these issues sorted themselves out. On August 1, 2001, Florida Baptist social worker Sue Kiser telephoned Mr. Zapata and scheduled an appointment for 4:30 p.m., on August 2, 2001, to discuss the reunification of C.R. with E.R. Later that day, Florida Baptist staff decided that since E.R. had recently returned from basic training, the optimum way of accomplishing reunification was to have E.R. meet Ms. Kiser and C.R. at a previously scheduled medical appointment on August 2, 2001, following which C.R. and E.R. would stay together at another foster home. Florida Baptist social worker, Jackie Barksdale, communicated this plan by telephone to Mr. Zapata on August 1, 2001. Mr. Zapata became angry and stated that he refused to allow C.R. to leave his home and go to visit with E.R. He accused Ms. Barksdale of "screwing with" C.R.'s life and committing "child abuse." He promised that "heads would roll" and disparaged E.R.'s family. Ms. Zapata then got on the telephone. She also accused Ms. Barksdale of child abuse and threatened to call the abuse hotline on Florida Baptist. Since no abuse reports were made by Petitioners, these threats were made as a bluff in an attempt to coerce Florida Baptist to leave C.R. with Petitioners. Given this conduct, the staff of Florida Baptist felt they had little choice but to remove C.R. from Petitioner's home. C.R. was removed from Petitioners' home on August 2, 2001. C.R. stayed in the other foster home without incident for about five weeks. C.R. and E.R. were then reunited, and continue to live together as a family. No reports of any problems between C.R. and E.R. have been received since that time. These facts clearly demonstrate Petitioners' unwillingness to cooperate in reunification plans for a child and mother. Petitioners permitted their low opinion regarding C.R.'s mother to interfere with their duty as foster parents. There was no evidence that Petitioners' attitude regarding the parents of foster children would not cause future interference in reunification efforts should their application for licensure be granted. An abused child, V.V., was placed in shelter care with Petitioners. V.V. had sustained a broken arm from abuse she had suffered. She stayed less than three days with Petitioners because her crying kept them up at night and interfered with Mrs. Zapata's home schooling of her biological children. Petitioners acted appropriately in requesting the removal of the child when it became apparent that the placement could not work out and does not demonstrate a lack of qualification for licensure. Finally, a pregnant teenage girl who wished to place her child with Florida Baptist wanted to see the home her child was to live in. Florida Baptist arranged for the girl to look at Petitioners' home. After the visit, Petitioners asked Florida Baptist never to ask them to submit to such an inspection, as they felt they were under some heightened level of scrutiny. Florida Baptist staff explained that parents frequently made this request, and Petitioners repeated that they did not wish to undergo it again. Petitioners request is troubling since one of the duties of the foster parent is to work with the biological parent of a foster child. Again, Petitioners' negative attitudes toward the parents of foster children demonstrate that Petitioners' application for licensure should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the application for a foster care license submitted by Petitioners Alfonso and Lynda Zapata. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Room 252-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Alfonso Zapata Lynda Zapata 1947 Treeline Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jeanette Dilligard, is licensed to operate the Dilligard Foster Home for children located at 1751 N.W. 76th Street in Miami, Florida. In the summer of 1985, W. T., age 11, L. I., age 9 and P. F., age 8, were placed in Ms. Dilligard's care by DHRS. While the children were in Ms. Dilligard's care, they were frequently and consistently given physical punishments and beatings. Each child would receive some form of physical punishment at least once a week. Ms. Dilligard used an electrical extension cord and a white belt when administering the beatings. The beatings would last about 5 minutes, sometimes leaving cuts and bruises on the children. The punishments were usually administered for fairly insignificant transgressions by the children. On one occasion, Ms. Dilligard had taken the children with her to a laundromat and L. I. accepted a piece of chewing gum from another person that was there. When Ms. Dilligard and the children returned home, L. I. was given a beating for "accepting food from a stranger." On another occasion, P. F. was eating sunflower seeds and left some of the empty shells on the floor. Ms. Dilligard administered a beating to P. F. for that offense. On yet another occasion, P. F. received a beating when she brought home a bad school report card. On November 19, 1985, W. T. lost a key to the house which he was given by Ms. Dilligard. Ms. Dilligard had previously told W. T. that if he lost the key, he could be given a beating. That evening, W. T. and his two sisters planned that they would run away from Ms. Dilligard's home the next day. On the morning of November 20, 1985, the three children ran away and went to their aunt's house. After the children left Ms. Dilligard's home, they were interviewed by the child protection team in Dade County and taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital for a medical examination. The physician's report indicated that both P. F. and L. I. had multiple bruises, scratches and abrasions on their legs and back which were non- accidental type injuries consistent with their allegations of physical beatings. Prior to receiving her license to operate a foster home, Ms. Dilligard was specifically advised, during a Foster Parent Training Program, of DHRS' policy that any form of physical punishment in the foster home setting was prohibited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Jeanette Dilligard's license to operate a family foster home be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1907 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in finding of fact 3. Adopted in substance in finding of fact 4. Adopted in substance in finding of fact 4. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance in finding of fact 4. Adopted in substance in finding of fact 5. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as argument. Rejected as argument. Rejected as argument. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance in finding of fact 5. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None Submitted) COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite 790 Miami, Florida 33128 Jeanette Dilligard 1751 Northwest 76th Street Miami, Florida 33147 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue at the final hearing was whether the Petitioners met the statutory criteria for licensure as a children's foster home.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioners, Paul and Patricia Burnette, were married in 1969 and have lived together continuously since that time. The Petitioners were previously licensed as foster home parents in the State of Florida and have had children placed in their home. During the summer of 1984, the Petitioners' became interested in adopting six (6) children, aged sixteen (16), fifteen (15), eleven (11), six (6), five (5), and four (4) years old. Because the parental rights of the natural mother had not been finally terminated, the Petitioners were advised by their case worker that they should apply for foster home care licensure. The case worker advised the Petitioners that if they were licensed for foster home care, they would be able to obtain custody of the children pending final termination of the parental rights of the natural mother. Thus, the Petitioners sought licensure to provide foster home care as a step toward ultimately adopting the six (6) children. By application dated November 1, 1984, the Petitioners, Paul and Patricia Burnette, applied for a license to provide foster-family care for children in accordance with the provisions of Section 409.175, Florida Statutes (1983). The application provided for Ms. Burnette to indicate whether or not she had been convicted for anything other than a minor traffic violation. Ms. Burnette did not indicate "yes" or "no" on that portion of the form. On October 4, 1983 Patricia Burnette was convicted in the County Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Orange County, Florida of the offense of petit theft. Ms. Burnette was tried by jury and was represented by counsel. She was adjudicated guilty and placed on six (6) months unsupervised probation. Ms. Burnette was further ordered to pay a fine of $150, $15 victims compensation, $7.50 surcharge and $14 court costs within 30 days. She was sentenced to serve ten (10) days in the Orange County jail, suspended on the condition that she complete ten (10) days of alternative community service beginning October 15, 1983. Ms. Burnette was further ordered not to go onto the premises of Albertson's located at 2801 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. Ms. Burnette was represented at trial by Leo A. Jackson, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Jackson informed Patricia Burnette that the judge had withheld adjudication. Mr. Jackson explained to Ms. Burnette that because the judge had withheld adjudication, she was not convicted of the crime. Based on the legal advice received from Mr. Jackson, Ms. Burnette believed that she had not been convicted of the offense of petit larceny. A medical history form was also included as a part of the application for licensure as a children's foster home. On the medical history form, Ms. Burnette responded "no" to the question of whether or not she had or had ever had any back pain. Prior to licensure as a children's foster home, the applicant's are required to be examined by a physician. The physician is required to complete a form entitled "Physicians Report on Adoption Applicants." As a part of completing the form, the physician requests information from the applicant concerning the applicants medical history or previous illnesses. Ms. Burnette was examined by Dr. Din On-Sun, D.O. on October 5, 1984. During the examination, Ms. Burnette did not indicate any prior back pain or any other problems related to her back. On November 10, 1978, Patricia Burnette was involved in an industrial accident and injured her back. Ms. Burnette was paid temporary total disability benefits for a period of 1,200 days and sustained a 3% permanent impairment as a result of the accident. As a result of her injury, Ms. Burnette was on crutches for two (2) years and was told that she would never walk again. Ms. Burnette occasionally still suffers from back pain and must take pain medication. Because of her back injury, Ms. Burnette did not·perform the community service which was ordered as a result of her conviction for petit theft in October 1983. From October 1983 through September 1984, Ms. Burnette continued to advise Ms. Sue Rash (the Alternative Service Coordinator responsible for arranging her community service) that she was unable to perform any community service because she was having considerable trouble with her back and needed back surgery but could not afford it. In September of 1984, MS. Rash arranged a special assignment for MS. Burnette to work approximately 2 hours per day at the Sand Lake Treatment Plant Laboratory washing glassware and doing "light cleaning up." Ms. Burnette told MS. Rash that she wanted to talk to her doctor before she agreed to do any community service. On September 18, 1984, Ms. Burnette's physician advised Ms. Rash that he didn't think that Ms. Burnette could stand long enough to wash glassware and do clean-up work at the Sand Lake Treatment Plant Laboratory. On October 13, 1984, Ms. Rash sent a letter to the judge who had originally ordered Ms. Burnette to perform the community service. Ms. Rash explained to the judge that Ms. Burnette was still unable to perform her community service and recommended that a different sentence be considered for Ms. Burnette in lieu of community service. At that point, Ms. Rash closed Ms. Burnette's file.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioners' present application for licensure as a children's foster home be VOIDED; and, Petitioners be allowed to submit a new application so that their eligibility for licensure as a children's foster home may be evaluated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services based on full and truthful responses to the inquiries contained therein. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of April, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Whitney, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 W. Robinson Street Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 N. Diane Holmes, Esquire 209 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 William "Pete" Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Huss, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") is authorized to deny re-licensure to Angelus Country Group Home I and Angelus Country Group Home II on the basis that it was improvidently granted and should have been licensed as a "residential habilitation center", as defined in Section 393.063(39), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, The Angelus, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Petitioner serves developmentally disabled clients ranging from age six to fifty-three, who suffer from such disabilities as cerebral palsy and spina bifida. The clients at The Angelus are profoundly disabled and are completely unable to care for themselves and are totally dependent upon the services and care provided by others. All are confined to a wheelchair, are non-verbal and some are blind, deaf and/or mentally retarded. The Angelus operates a residential facility and a day program on seventeen (17) acres of wooded property it owns just east of Hudson, in Pasco County, Florida. On the property, the day program is operated out of a large day program center, which is housed in a 5,000 sq. ft. building. The facility also includes a go-cart track and swimming pool. The day program clients commute to the property. Although the routine at The Angelus is not structured and the staff are not licensed professionals that are capable of treating, diagnosing or rehabilitating the children, training in activities of daily living (ADL) skills, habilitation and recreation takes place at the facility. Each client has an approved habilitation plan, as required by HRS, but individualized evaluation and planning do not take place. In addition, there are presently two individual homes which are designed to accommodate ten residents each. Each home is presently at capacity, with a waiting list. Each house is an independent functioning home with a kitchen and living/TV area and shared bedroom arrangement. Although the children are unrelated, they live together and function as a family. The homes are located within fifty feet of each other and are connected by a sidewalk. Staff provides 24 hour supervision in shifts at the homes. The entire Angelus complex operates under the same administration which oversees the day program and the residential homes. The first house, at the current location, was determined to be and licensed as a group home by HRS in 1984, and the second home was built and licensed in 1987. The license of each group home has been renewed annually since that date. Prior to April 1, 1991, The Angelus timely filed an application for re- licensure for the two group homes which it operates. Under a group home license, the licensee is permitted to house 4 to 15 persons in each home. Although inspection of the homes showed only minor discrepancies, the district staff of the Department determined that the facilities were operating as a "residential habilitation center" and seeks to deny re-licensure as a group home. A residential habilitation center is a community residential facility with a clearly defined mission and can house not less than nine residents with no maximum number. Large group homes and small residential habitation centers have overlapping goals and objectives. The Angelus, in its current configuration, meets both the qualifications of a residential habitation center or as a group home. One of the Department's concerns is that since the homes are located on 17 wooded acres and are not in a urban area they are not in a community setting. The Angelus is in compliance with Pasco County zoning codes and is classified as a group home. There are many prospective residents who are waiting to live at the Angelus, and there is a community need for additional facilities for developmentally disabled persons. The care provided by The Angelus Group Home I and The Angelus Group Home II meets the standards and criteria of a group home as defined by statute and should be renewed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Angelus petition for a renewal of its group home licenses for the Angelus Group Home I and II be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19 day of May, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24 Rejected as irrelevant or as a conclusion: paragraphs 6, 7, 13, 15, 20, 23, 25, 26. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence: paragraphs 18, 19 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9(in part), 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Rejected as irrelevant: paragraph 11, 18, 20. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence: paragraph 9 (in part: only two clients share a bedroom), 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen C. Booth, Esq. 510 Ridge Road Port Richey, FL 34668 Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 5 Legal Office 11351 Ulmerton Rd. Largo, FL 34648 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent was wrongfully denied license renewal for a group home.
Findings Of Fact Prior to April 1989, the Barbara Sutton Group Home was a group home facility licensed by the DHRS, Petitioner. In April 1989, DHRS removed all clients from Respondent's facility and placed a moratorium on further admissions. When Respondent's license came due for renewal, neglect charges were pending against Respondent, and Respondent was advised no renewal would be effected until the neglect charges were settled. Following a Chapter 120 hearing on those charges, the hearing officer in DOAH Case No. 89-447C found the charges unfounded and recommended they be dismissed. DHRS entered a Final Order on February 5, 1990 expunging the confirmed report and reclassifying it as unfounded. Thereafter Respondent again applied for renewal of license, and this application was denied. It is significant that grounds for denial of renewal of license include at least two of the grounds upon which the neglect charges were based and which were proven to be unfounded at the neglect hearing. No evidence was presented at this hearing on the charges of failure to seek medical care for an injured client and providing false information concerning consultation with a physician. The other ground listed in the March 15, 1990 charging letter for denying the renewal of the license, viz., failure to carry out recommended and/or prescribed therapies was attempted to be proven only with hearsay evidence to which objection was sustained (Exhibits 2 and 3). These exhibits were offered into evidence by a DHRS employee witness who neither prepared the documents nor supervised their preparation. To the contrary, these documents were prepared by Winter Haven Physical Therapy and Rehabilitative Services, and no witness was produced to authenticate these documents. These documents are not "business records" of the activities of DHRS and do not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule, and thereby become admissible into evidence. Further, no admissible evidence was submitted to corroborate the hearsay contained in Exhibits 2 and 3, thereby allowing them into evidence pursuant to Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The evidence presented in these proceedings involved other charges which were not contained in the charging letter, unless the phrase "but are not limited to" gives Petitioner wide latitude to bring up at heading charges of which Respondent was not made aware prior thereto Absent specific allegations, it is often difficult to ascertain exactly what charges the evidence presented is intended to prove. With this caveat, it appears that the most serious allegations involve the treatment given to Adam B., a 16 year old cerebral palsy victim so inflicted since birth when half of his brain died. Adam requires total care in the activities of daily living. In addition to the frequent serious episodes endemic to cerebral palsy, Adam was formerly diagnosed as having diabetes insipitus. In March 1989, Adam was admitted to Lakeland Regional Memorial Center with a high fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit. He was transported from Barbara Sutton Group Home by paramedics at 2 a.m. on March 4, 1989. Upon arrival of the paramedics at the home, Adam was in severe respiratory distress, and the E.M.S. suctioned Adam and ended up intubating him with an endotracheal tube (Exhibit 1). Blood tests at the hospital revealed a severe electrolyte imbalance with sodium at the dangerous level of 184. When Adam was discharged from the hospital on March 8, 1989, he was sent home on oral antibiotics. He did not later return to the group home because DHRS had removed all DHRS sponsored clients from the home, presumably based largely on Adam's hospitalization. The conclusion that Respondent was negligent in the treatment of Adam apparently stems from the fact that his temperature was 105 degrees Fahrenheit when the paramedics arrived. This leads to the assumption that inadequate supervision was involved; otherwise, the rising temperature would have been noted, and Adam would have been hospitalized sooner. Both Adam's father and mother testified in these proceedings. They have taken care of Adam in their home for the major part of his life and have frequently noted that Adam can experience wide variations in temperature in a very short period as well as serious imbalances in his electrolytes. The only explanation for these rapid changes his parents have been able to glean from doctors treating Adam is that his condition is somehow related to the inactive left side of the brain which fails to call up defenses to these changes. They also testified that Adam's urinary output can increase dramatically without apparent reason, and in a short time he can become dehydrated. His diapers require changing up to 12 times per day. Adam has been in other group homes, and his parents are firmly convinced that the best treatment he has been provided in any facility outside their home is in Barbara Sutton Group Home. They look forward to returning Adam to this group home when, and if, it is reopened. Before placing Adam at Respondent's home, Adam's parents inspected the facility, talked to Ms. Sutton, looked at the care given other children, demanded the right to visit the home at any time, and then decided to place Adam in this facility. As did all other witnesses, Adam's parents described the facility as very clean, well maintained, well staffed by people interested in taking care of severely handicapped children, and well set up to handle handicapped children. Respondent stipulated that the facility was neat, clean and well maintained. Eric Olson, a Development Services Program Specialist at DHRS, has conducted annual surveys at the Sutton Group Home for the past four years. Ms. Sutton has corrected all minor deficiencies reported during the surveys of the home. At the June 1988 inspection, the home was found to be in 99 percent compliance, in 1987 it was found to be 91.5 percent in compliance, in 1986 it was found to be in 97 percent compliance, and in 1985 it was found to be in 92 percent compliance. These are high marks for a group home. Following the 1989 hospitalization of Adam, Olson inquired further into the operation of the Sutton Home and found Respondent did not always keep doctor's appointments made for clients at the home; that she did not always promptly notify the contact person at Children's Medical Services (CMS), a portion of DHRS whose job is to provide medical care for children qualifying for such services, who need such information promptly to pay for the services; that she did not always promptly notify the appropriate party when emergency services were required for clients; that reports were received that clients at this home were not always receiving the physical therapy prescribed to be provided by attendants at the home; that there were some discrepancies in medication; and that prescribed feeding techniques were not always followed. Olson made the initial recommendation to deny license renewal to Respondent, although there are neither enough group homes available for qualified clients nor funds to provide for needed card. Kendall Burnup is a teacher at Dora Sanders Learning Center, a part of the Polk County School System, which is a special school for children who are sufficiently handicapped they cannot be mainstreamed. He had difficulty feeding Rodney, a pupil of the school who resided at Barbara Sutton Group Home. Burnup sent several notes to Respondent inquiring about feeding Rodney and had an occupational therapist at the school prepare a feeding program for Rodney (Exhibit 4). Rodney had been a resident of Respondent's group home for approximately five years and had never presented a particularly difficult feeding problem. However, Rodney liked his food warm and refused to eat it otherwise. When Burnup fed Rodney warm food, he found the feeding to be easier. Respondent, as well as mothers of clients at the group home, testified that these handicapped children do not like changes and rebel at any attempt to change their routines, including feeding, to which they have become accustomed. Faith Hennessee, a registered nurse assigned to Dora Sanders Learning Center, was made aware of Rodney's apparent weight loss, and she had some discussions with Respondent regarding Rodney's diet. She has no recollection that Respondent ever failed to follow her instructions regarding the clients. Ms. Hennessee did testify that she returned an empty prescribed medicine bottle for one of the clients of Respondent to refill, and Respondent returned the bottle with two medications (both pills or capsules) in the bottle. This violates statutes pertaining to dispensing medications. Respondent testified that Ms. Hennessee told her when she returned the empty prescription bottle that she was also low on the other medication which Respondent supplied in the returned bottle. Ms. Hennessee does not recall making such a request. Since the medications are easily identified from each other, no serious danger to the client was here involved. The mother of Stevie Jo, a client at Respondent's home prior to April 1989, placed Stevie Jo in Respondent's home in 1984 when the home was first opened. Stevie Jo is fed with a gastrointestinal tube, is blind, mute, can't walk and needs assistance much the same as does a 2 to 4 months old infant. She takes medication for seizures, and as she gets older she needs arm braces to help control contractions. Stevie Jo was removed from Respondent's home in April 1989 when the moratorium was placed on the home, and her mother would very much like to return Stevie Jo to Respondent's home where Stevie Jo received more attention and better care than in other homes. Connie Kalel is a registered nurse at (CMS) in Lakeland, makes doctor's appointments for children under CMS supervision and provides for certain medical supplies for these children. Ms. Kalel complained that Respondent was late picking up a purchase order for wrist braces for Stevie Jo that were ordered several months before finally being picked up. Respondent explained that part of this delay stemmed from an improper cast having been put on Stevie Jo's arm, which, when removed, caused injuries which, until healed, precluded use of these braces. Respondent further testified that the first time anyone had told her that she needed to notify CMS of all emergency medical treatment for her clients was at this hearing. Prior thereto she had believed she only needed to advise the DHRS case worker responsible for the child. Wanda Gibson, DHRS Human Services Counselor III, was the case manager for Respondent home while it was operating and was supposed to visit the home monthly. Ms. Gibson testified that she visited the home monthly for a period of approximately one hour, arriving around 3 p.m., that she observed Respondent on one occasion feeding Rodney three spoonfuls of food in rapid succession without giving him time to swallow the first, and that the facility was understaffed. When asked by the hearing officer what the staffing requirements were for this group home, Ms. Gibson did not know. Respondent testified that Ms. Gibson did not visit the home every month, but often doubled up covering two months with one visit, that she remained no longer than 15 minutes at a visit, that she had never been at the home long enough to observe feeding, and that she avoided all close contact with the clients. Respondent's testimony is given more credence than that of Ms. Gibson. Only one parent testified that she was not fully satisfied with the treatment received by her child while at Respondent's home. Sandra McClish's son Ricky was at Respondent's home some five years ago for a period of approximately four months. Ricky has cystic fibrosis and has always been underweight. Ricky has severe brain damage, is blind with sclerosis and cystic fibrosis. He needs a brace to sit up. Ms. McClish saw Ricky at school one day without his brace and noted he seemed to have lost weight. She never saw Ricky without his brace at Respondent's home. When she asked Respondent about the weight loss, Respondent told her Ricky was hard to feed. Shortly thereafter, Ricky was hospitalized for dehydration and abnormal glycerides. When released from the hospital, Ricky had a bed sore-type lesion, and he was put in another group home to have a gastrointestinal tube inserted. His mother had not seen a bed sore on Ricky before he was hospitalized and doesn't know if it originated in the group home or the hospital. Respondent contends Ricky was fine until it was time to give him medication before meals. The capsules would be opened and the contents mixed with apple sauce to get Ricky to swallow. He would chew the grains and break them which released something that burned his mouth. He would then not eat. Ricky was returned to Respondent's home for only a short period after the gastrointestinal tube was inserted before he was removed. Deborah Mitchell, a LPN was sent by medical poll to work in Respondent's home for approximately 2 weeks in April 1989. She worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift and was present when the children were awakened, bathed, dressed and fed breakfast. She deemed the quality of care given the children as excellent, and Respondent knew everything about the children in the home. Other parents testified to the excellent care their handicapped child received in Respondent's home in respite care (45 days per year) and for short periods for which the parents pay such as weekends, after school and two weeks vacation each year.
Recommendation That the license to operate a group home be issued to Barbara Sutton Hensley. ENTERED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment accorded proposed findings submitted by Petitioner. 1 and 2. Accepted. Rejected. Although Respondent missed some appointments, no "ongoing and consistent" pattern developed. Accepted. However, see H.O. # Rejected as irrelevant. Respondent had at least 4 renewals of her license since McClish was a client. Last phrase of finding rejected. 7-13. Rejected as unsupported by credible evidence. Additionally, none of these deficiencies was contained in the charging letter thereby making these charges irrelevant. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted. Those not included herein were deemed immaterial or unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Haman, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 W. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard Tampa, FL 33614 C. Nathaniel White, Esquire Post Office Box 2624 Bartow, FL 33830 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's registration to operate a registered family daycare home should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with registering family daycare homes in Florida and regulating their practices and operations. The Petitioner has been registered to operate a family daycare home since 1998. That registration was conditional because of an incident which occurred on January 14, 1999, involving the Petitioner's daughter, Cleta Brantley, in which Ms. Brantley purportedly brandished a knife and threatened a neighbor in the daycare home in the presence of the children being kept there. The investigation of that incident (not directly involved in this proceeding) resulted in the Petitioner's registration being made conditional, based upon her ensuring that in the future Cleta Brantley would never be present in the home. James Farrar is a child protective investigator with the Department. He testified on behalf of the Department in this proceeding. He is personally engaged in three investigations regarding child abuse, abandonment or neglect involving the Petitioner's home, including one investigation which was still in progress as of the date of the hearing. The earliest investigation involved an incident of domestic violence which occurred on January 14, 1999. That incident was a violent altercation between the Petitioner's daughter, Cleta Brantley and the neighbor, during which Ms. Brantley brandished a knife in the daycare home in the presence of the clients' children. The investigation revealed that three of Ms. Parker's relatives, Cleta Brantley, Thomas Brantley, and William Ousley, were residing with Ms. Parker, at least part of the time. Mr. Farrar made findings of maltreatment, verified, for domestic violence and associated with a deadly weapon. The second investigation involving Mr. Farrar related to concerns involving an incident occurring in May 2002. In this incident, Ms. Parker's son William Ousley, was residing at the home when a verbal altercation erupted between Mr. Ousley and other family members and the Petitioner's assistant who worked in the daycare operation at the home. Mr. Ousley was under the influence of alcohol during this altercation and children were present in his immediate vicinity in the home. Mr. Farrar's investigation revealed that Mr. Ousley had a criminal background involving a felony conviction and had not been subjected to "level two screening" before the Petitioner allowed him to occupy the home, at least on a part-time basis. On the day in question Mr. Ousley was in a drunken state and became very angry and argumentative and engaged in a shouting altercation with a person or persons in the home, culminating in his throwing a beer bottle inside the home. The daycare worker or assistant of Petitioner ordered him to leave or she would call the police. Ultimately she summoned the police who arrived, investigated the incident and made a report. One of the officers involved testified at the hearing. Mr. Farrar made verified findings of maltreatment regarding the children in the home on the basis of their being exposed to a person who was abusing alcohol and for possible physical harm to the children. Mr. Farrar also had an active investigation of child abuse at the time of this hearing. This investigation involved an incident occurring less than two weeks before the administrative hearing. In this incident some dogs which the Petitioner was keeping at her home, which belonged to her son Thomas Brantley, attacked a child in the front yard of the home, resulting in injuries to the child requiring some 50 stitches and staples in the child's head and back. Four other children were present in the home at the time of the attack. The dogs had been living in the home for approximately two years at the time of the incident. This incident is not itself a basis for the proposed revocation in this case and was not noticed as a ground for proposed revocation by the Department's charging letter of June 11, 2002. The evidence of this incident is used as corroborative evidence to the testimony and evidence offered concerning the incidents giving rise to the charging letter and proposed agency action. Debra Ann Martin is a family counselor in the licensing department of the Department of Children and Family Services. She testified at the hearing. She is the caseworker who has been assigned to the Petitioner's home since March of 1999. She described the Department's requirements concerning background screening for anyone over the age of 12 who lives in, occupies or resides in a registered daycare home. Ms. Martin established that Ms. Parker has been advised a number of times concerning these rules regarding screening and has knowledge of the screening requirements. The Department's Composite Exhibit One in evidence consists of Ms. Parker's registration applications with the Department, each dated in December 1999, 2000 and 2001, respectively. Other than her granddaughter, listed on the 1999 application, Ms. Parker did not list anyone as a family or household member in any of those applications. Ms. Martin offered a chronology of history of disturbances and incidents involving the Lucille Parker Daycare Home. Ms. Martin established that the Department had denied Ms. Parker's application to re-new her registration in 1999 based upon the concerns of the Department involving Ms. Parker's daughter, Cleta Brantley, referenced above. Ultimately, however, Ms. Parker was allowed to re-register her home on the condition that Cleta Brantley would not live at the home or be allowed any access to the children in the home. During a visit on December 22, 1999, however, Ms. Martin observed Cleta Brantley in the home with her belongings and clothing. The Petitioner testified that Ms. Brantley was merely at the home briefly that day to pick up belongings and clothing which had been left at the home at an earlier date and that she did not actually reside at the home. Further contact by Ms. Martin in the year 2000 and 2001, however, showed that Cleta Brantley and William Ousley both stayed at the home or spent the night on occasions. Ms. Martin described several other incidents when she found evidence that one or more of Ms. Parker's children were sleeping in the daycare home, including an incident in which Thomas Brantley threatened to turn his dogs on her. All of these children or relatives were over the age of 12 at the times in question. They were not and have not been subjected to screening by the Department. Officer Frank Van Schmidt of the Fort Walton Beach Police Department testified on behalf of the Department. Officer Van Schmidt was involving in an incident in May of 2002, in the daycare home of the Petitioner, Lucille Parker. The incident involved Ms. Parker's son, William Ousley. Officer Van Schmidt described observing Mr. Ousley as very intoxicated, angry, yelling and screaming. Officer Van Schmidt testified that Mr. Ousley made it clear to him that he lived at Ms. Parker's home. Officer Van Schmidt established that the Petitioner, Lucille Parker, initially told him that Mr. Ousley did indeed live there but changed her story later on the same day. This was the day when Officer Van Schmidt investigated the incident, described above, involving William Ousley and the angry drunken altercation. Officer Van Schmidt testified that during the investigation of the incident he overheard Lucille Parker telling someone that she had previously advised the Department several times that Mr. Ousley did not live in the residence because if the Department found out that he did live there she could lose her license. This was after Ms. Parker had advised the officer that Mr. Ousley did not reside at the residence. This is also after Ms. Clayborne, who worked for Ms. Parker and Ms. Gibson, who was present at the scene, had earlier advised the officer that Mr. Ousley did live at the residence. Before he left the home on that day Officer Van Schmidt advised Ms. Parker that the case would be forwarded to the Department of Children and Families. She asked him not to contact the Department and he advised her that he had to tell them according to law. She then stated that she would pay him money if he would not say anything to the Department but he advised her that they had already been notified and that a report would be sent to them. The Petitioner, Lucille Parker, testified on her own behalf. She testified generally that various persons often stayed at her home for limited periods of time. She testified that William Ousley would "stay" with her when he was in town and that the Department found out about that when Ms. Martin discovered Mr. Ousley at the home. Ms. Parker acknowledged that Ms. Ousley had never been given or requested a background screening. Ms. Parker stated that she told Debra Martin that Mr. Ousley was not living there. She further acknowledged that she had kept Mr. Thomas Brantley's dogs at her home for several years and that these were the same dogs involved in the October 2002 attack on a child on her premises. The Petitioner called her other witnesses, some of whom have had their children kept by the Petitioner for substantial periods of time in the last two decades. They uniformly described the Petitioner as given good care to their children, maintaining a safe environment for them and being a very loving keeper of their children. These witnesses who have had their children kept by the Petitioner uniformly testified that they would not hesitate to have her keep their children once more or to continue to keep them as the case may be. Additionally, the Petitioner's minister described the Petitioner as good Christian person who has been an active worker in her church for some 40 or more years, of the highest moral character and otherwise quite well suited to continue to keep children in her home.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's registration to operate a registered family daycare home should be revoked; however, the revocation should be suspended for a period of one year, during which time the Petitioner, operating under reasonable, but frequent inspection and reporting requirements imposed by the Department, should be given an opportunity to show that the violations of the relevant statutes and rules have been corrected and that she is maintaining the operation of her registered family daycare home in a manner which precisely comports with the rules, policies and statutes that the Department is charged with enforcing. If she demonstrates such compliance to the Department at the end of one year then her registration should be restored in an unimpeded status. If she does not, then revocation should be carried out. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucille Parker 2112 Ajax Drive Pensacola, Florida 32548 Rick D. Cserep, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 160 Governmental Center, Suite 601 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue when this case commenced was whether the Respondents' emergency shelter home license (for temporary care of dependent children) should be revoked. During the pendency of the proceeding the license expired and the parties stipulated that the issue was whether HRS must consider a new application, with no prejudice as to the alleged grounds for revocation. This action arose from HRS' complaint dated May 30, 1985, alleging that the Woodards violated various statutes, rules and the HRS manual 175-10, by: maintaining dangerous pets (pit bulldogs); providing inadequate nourishment; providing inadequate sleeping arrangements; failing to provide appropriate care and supervision: and maintaining outside employment after telling HRS that the employment would discontinue. A timely request for formal hearing was filed by the Woodards. At the hearing, HRS presented three exhibits and the testimony of Dale Medina, Nancy Traad, Maxine Standiffer, Jean Majures and Peggy Ann Siegel. Louise Woodard testified on her own behalf and presented no other witnesses or exhibits. By stipulation, the testimony of an additional HRS witness, Alene Scott, was admitted by deposition taken and filed after the hearing. (Order dated February 3, 1986.) HRS filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact is found in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order. Based upon all of the evidence; the following findings of fact are determined:
Findings Of Fact Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in part in paragraphs 6 and 7; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Mrs. Woodard did not admit that the children were sleeping on pads on the floor. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7 and 8. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 4.
The Issue Whether Petitioners, Kim and Coby Lantz, should be granted a license as a family foster home.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating family foster homes. Petitioners are applicants for a family foster home license. In February 2004, Petitioners initially sought to adopt a child, but, subsequently, changed the application to provide foster care for children. As part of the process, Petitioners attended an orientation conducted by Respondent's family services counselor and completed a screening questionnaire. As part of the application process, applicants are required to complete the Model Approach for Parenting (MAP) training, which includes classes to better prepare prospective foster and adoptive parents for the placement of children in their homes. The purpose is to ensure, prior to placement, that prospective parents work effectively as a team with each other and with Respondent. It is also important that they know and understand their rights and obligations that a stable environment be created for the children. As part of the MAP training and evaluation, prospective foster parents are required to complete a thorough background and history form. They are asked to give a complete life history, including prior relationships, marriages, customs, and culture. Both Petitioners completed the form. Petitioner Coby Lantz has been very supportive of his wife's desire to obtain a family foster home license and to provide care for foster children. He provided sufficient information in order for Respondent to complete his portion of the family assessment. Petitioner Coby Lantz completed the MAP training during this period. Petitioner Kim Lantz was given credit for completing the MAP training while married to her second husband, Darrell Palmer. Petitioner Kim Lantz completed the Adult's Personal Profile (for prospective mothers), consisting of 17 pages, plus a five-page, hand-written "Life Story." On page five of the profile, she was specifically asked to complete information on previous intimate relationships and former marriages. Petitioner Kim Lantz listed only one former marriage. She indicated she was married to Darrell Palmer from November 18, 2000, until his death on September 12, 2001. However, Petitioner Kim Lantz was, in fact, married to Robert D. Haynes in June 1991, separated two years later, and the final decree of divorce was entered on October 10, 1995. Petitioner Kim Lantz's explanation of this omission, while testifying at the hearing, was that she and her first husband married shortly after college. She stated, "[i]t was a high school sweetheart thing . . . he was not abusive to me. He did drink. We just grew apart. We divorced. That was it. It was like a guy I dated. He's not really anything to comment about. I moved on " These responses, along with other parts of her testimony, indicate that Petitioner Kim Lantz tends to suppress unpleasant memories from her past and to not deal with them effectively. Also, Petitioner Kim Lantz has not given a credible explanation of her complete omission of any reference to Haynes in her profile or "Life Story." In addition, it was only with excessive prodding that Petitioner produced a Certificate of Divorce from Haynes. These omissions and vague explanations have prevented Respondent from completing a thorough family assessment as required by Florida law. Petitioner Kim Lantz's second marriage to Darrell Palmer ended tragically on November 12, 2001. She was present with her husband in their apartment when local law enforcement came to their door. The law enforcement officers were seeking to determine the origin of bomb threats made to a local Dillard's department store. Apparently, they wanted to interview her, who was employed there at the time, and Palmer, a former employee. When Palmer, who was preparing a meal in the kitchen, opened the door with a kitchen knife in his hands, he was shot and killed by law enforcement. Petitioner was emotionally devastated by this event. At her parents urging, she returned to their home in upstate New York, where she received love and support from her family and her church. Petitioner Kim Lantz testified that she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and received mental health counseling for two years and, also, received medication for this condition. However, Petitioners have provided only sketchy information concerning her current mental health status. While still in New York, Petitioners met at a church function, dated, and married and eventually moved to Cocoa, Florida. During the course of Respondent's family assessment, it was determined, in late March 2005, that Petitioner Kim Lantz was terminated at her place of employment, a daycare facility, on February 28, 2005. She failed to report this event and attempted to withhold this fact from Respondent. Her explanation to Respondent's investigator and her testimony at the hearing is not credible and amounts to a willful or intentional misstatement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioners, Kim and Coby Lantz's application for a family foster home license be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cato, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Kim Lantz Coby Lantz 6983 Dahlia Drive Cocoa, Florida 32927 Gregory Venz, 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
