The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a group home facility should be approved or denied by Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities (“APD”).
Findings Of Fact APD is responsible for regulating the licensing and operation of group home facilities in the state of Florida. APD’s clients include vulnerable individuals with developmental disabilities attributed to autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, Phelan-McDermid syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, or spina bifida. APD’s clients can choose to live in an institutional setting, group home, or independently. A client is assisted in making this choice by a residential placement coordinator. A group home is a licensed facility providing a living arrangement similar to a family setting. It is the provider’s responsibility to provide not only room and board but also safety, transportation, assistance with the activities of daily living, and the provider’s responsibility to provide all residential rehabilitation services at the level needed by the client, as established by the client with a waiver support coordinator. A waiver support coordinator is an independent contractor for APD who acts as a case manager and is responsible for coordinating the services provided to a client. Support plans are prepared and submitted to APD by a client’s waiver support coordinator. A support plan includes a summary of events and activities that have occurred throughout the year, including hospitalizations, medications, and the client's goals. Ms. Houston, an independent contractor of APD, seeks to own and operate Ruby’s Safe Haven Group Home to be located at 20215 County Road 561, Clermont, Florida 34711. Ms. Houston has never been licensed to operate a group home. Ms. Houston was assigned to serve C.C., a vulnerable adult and APD client. C.C. requires assistance with her care, protection, shopping, and finances. Ms. Houston was authorized to perform personal support services and supported living coaching for C.C. Personal support service providers provide assistance and training to the client related to activities of daily living such as eating, bathing, preparing meals, and personal hygiene. Supported living coaching includes teaching the client to manage money, to maintain living accommodations, and to shop for household items and food. Investigation Involving Client C.C. In an incident report dated February 27, 2019, a confidential complainant reported that Ms. Houston was not providing appropriate care to her client, C.C. Kathryn Furey was the API assigned to investigate the report. Ms. Furey determined that the report alleged that C.C. suffered from three hazards as follows: environmental hazard due to an unclean apartment; financial exploitation because C.C. did not have cash; and inadequate supervision. During her investigation, Ms. Furey interviewed C.C. at her apartment. During the interview, C.C. was appropriately groomed with no body odor. Her apartment was clean and Ms. Furey observed cleaning products. However, C.C. reported that she had not seen Ms. Houston for a week. C.C. reported that Ms. Houston delivered chicken with freezer burn for C.C. She also reported that Ms. Houston’s daughter delivered pre-cooked food for meals. On the day of the interview, the freezer was empty. Ultimately, at the close of the investigation, C.C. indicated that she wants Ms. Houston to continue as her provider. The investigator interviewed C.C.’s roommate who confirmed C.C.’s statements. He reported that he had not seen Ms. Houston for five days and that he and C.C. had been eating left-over food that Ms. Houston’s daughter delivered to the apartment. The investigator then interviewed C.C.’s waiver support coordinator, Marilyn Collier. Ms. Collier reported that C.C. should not eat leftovers as it is not in her best interest based on her low sodium diet. Ms. Collier provided information related to the care C.C. should receive. The service authorization budget for C.C. requires that she receive five hours of coaching and 25 hours of personal support each week. Moreover, Ms. Collier explained that failure to provide contracted hours consistent with the personal support plan would be considered inadequate supervision. When referring to a vulnerable adult, inadequate supervision is a form of neglect.1 Ms. Furey also interviewed Ms. Houston. During the initial interview, Ms. Houston denied inappropriately using C.C.’s money. Ms. Houston stated that she transfers money from C.C. to her roommate’s bank account to pay rent and utilities. She denied that C.C. did not have food. She stated that she shops with C.C. four times per month and teaches her to cook and eat healthy food. She acknowledged that the January service log units exceeded the APD budget and as a result, she applied the service hours to February, which was under budget. During a follow-up interview, Ms. Houston reported improvements that she has made since the initiation of the investigation and that she attended training which has helped her understand her responsibilities. On April 26, 2019, the investigator closed the investigation with verified findings of inadequate supervision. She relied upon APD policy that the service logs should reflect personal support and coaching according to the APD budget. Specifically, Ms. Houston provided too many service hours in January and not enough hours in February, which was not consistent with the budget. Ms. Furey did not make any verified findings regarding an environmental hazard or exploitation. Ms. Furey conducted an exit interview with Ms. Houston. She explained the findings and Ms. Houston verbally acknowledged her understanding of the findings. 1 Pursuant to section 415.102(16), Florida Statutes, “neglect” means the failure or omission on the part of the caregiver or vulnerable adult to provide the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the physical and mental health of the vulnerable adult, including, but not limited to, food, clothing, medicine, shelter, supervision, and medical services, which a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of a vulnerable adult. Application On or about December 20, 2019, Petitioner submitted a paper application for licensure of Ruby’s Safe Haven Group Home as a residential group home facility. The application contains the following question, to which Petitioner answered “no”: Section V: Affidavit * * * 2. Have you or ownership controlling entity affiliated with this application ever been identified as responsible for abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child or the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Petitioner signed the application, which contains the following attestation, and had her signature notarized: Under penalty of perjury, I hereby attest that all information contained in and submitted with [this] application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and by submitting same I am requesting a license to operate a facility in accordance with Chapter 393, F.S. I also attest that I have the authority to attest to such information on behalf of the above-named applicant for licensure or license renewal. At hearing, Ms. Houston asserted that she did not intend to make a false statement on the application. She explained that she did not understand the DCF findings of inadequate supervision because Ms. Furey did not make it clear to her the nature of the findings. However, Ms. Houston acknowledged that Ms. Furey discussed the investigation findings with her and told her that she needed to provide adequate supervision of C.C. In addition, Ms. Furey testified that she verbally informed Petitioner of the verified findings contained in her report, which is memorialized in Ms. Furey’s notes created contemporaneously with the exit interview on April 26, 2019. Thus, the more credible evidence of record established that Petitioner was verbally informed of the findings by DCF API Furey. One can appreciate Ms. Houston’s confusion as there is no evidence in record that Ms. Furey provided Petitioner a Notice of Rights and Responsibilities following the investigation, which is routinely given to persons who are responsible for verified findings of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of vulnerable adults. In addition, Ms. Houston was permitted to continue service to C.C. after the investigation. However, her confusion does not detract from her false representation on the application. The record without dispute demonstrates that DCF made a verified finding against Ms. Houston for inadequate supervision of C.C., a form of neglect, which should have been disclosed on the application.
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 Petitioner’s application for licensure for a group home. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 8th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tonya B. Houston Ruby’s Safe Haven Group Home 3125 Oak Brook Lane Eustis, Florida 32736 (eServed) Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Agency for Persons With Disabilities Suite 380 4030 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Danielle Thompson Senior Attorney/Ageny Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 309 Tallahassee,Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Francis Carbone, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue Should Petitioner's request for enrollment to provide services under the Developmental Services Home and Community- Based Services Waiver be denied?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Petitioner has three children, one of whom is developmentally disabled. This child is 21 years of age but mentally functions as a one-year old. This child is basically confined to a wheelchair. However, this child can sit on the floor and pull himself around by his arms. The other children, ages two and 12, function normally. Petitioner, with the help of her mother, aunt, and several other caregivers, has been seeing to the needs of this disabled child. The services provided to this child by Petitioner are similar to those services which Petitioner would provide to other individuals in need if the Application is granted. In addition to seeing to the needs of her disabled child, Petitioner has been, for approximately 10 years, working as a caregiver providing services, similar to those listed in the Application, to individuals in need outside her home. Presently, Petitioner is working a 12-hour shift seven days a week as a caregiver providing services similar to those services listed in the Application to a person 84 years of age. In order to provide the services applied for, Petitioner will: (a) provide those services to individuals in her home with or without the child being present, when appropriate; or (b) provide those services to individuals outside of her home when necessary and the child can be properly taken care of by another caregiver or is in school. The care of the child, when he is not in school or when Petitioner is not available to care for him, will be provided for by Petitioner's mother, aunt, or husband, or by another qualified caregiver. In the letter denying the Application, the Department states that "Concerns found in reviewing background screening" was the basis for denial. Ms. Linda Brophy, Human Services Program Specialist, the person who apparently made the decision for the Department to deny the Application, testified that she reviewed three different "Hotline reports" concerning Petitioner and relied solely on that review to deny the Application. Ms. Brophy further testified that she did not interview the person or persons making the reports, the persons or persons who investigated the reports, or Petitioner to determine if the allegations made in the report were in fact true. Hotline Report Number 1999-07785 alleges that the Petitioner's disabled child had been left alone. The facts surrounding this report were: (a) Petitioner had carried the child out to the porch to be picked up by the bus to carry him to school; (b) Petitioner's baby was just inside the door and began to cry; (c) Petitioner stepped back inside the house to care for her baby; and (d) while Petitioner was inside seeing to the needs of her baby, the school bus driver and assistant took the disabled child from the porch and carried him to school. Hotline Report Number 2000-089952 alleges that Petitioner left the disabled child with a caregiver that was not qualified to handle the child. The facts surrounding the report were: (a) Petitioner had left the disabled child with a qualified caregiver; (b) the caregiver had an emergency and left the child with another caregiver but failed to leave instructions as to how to get in touch with Petitioner in the event of an emergency; (c) the child had a seizure; and (d) due to the caregiver not having proper instruction, the child's seizure was not timely attended to. However, upon being made aware that the child had suffered a seizure, Petitioner attended to the child. The initial caregiver no longer cares for the child. Hotline Report Number 2001-030947 alleges that while the disabled child was being cared for by Petitioner's mother he suffered a seizure and was taken to the hospital by Petitioner's mother. Petitioner's mother had never witnessed the child having a seizure and was somewhat confused by the event. Apparently, the child very rarely suffers from a seizure, maybe once a year. In any event, Petitioner went to the hospital to see about the child upon being advised that the child had suffered a seizure. There is no evidence that the Department concluded that the allegations contained in any of the above Hotline Reports were founded. The Department did not deny Petitioner's Application based on the lack of qualifications. However, Petitioner has shown that she is qualified to provide those services applied for in the Application. Petitioner has also shown that she is capable of safely and adequately serving individuals to whom she provides those services applied for in the Application. Petitioner intends to operate as an independent vendor, in that she will bill for and be reimbursed only for services personally rendered by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order approving Petitioner's application for enrollment as a qualified provider under the Developmental Services Home and Community-Based Waiver, Services for the services set forth in the Application. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire District 14, Legal Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Angenette Frasier 1914 Indian Trails Court Lakeland, Florida 33813-3725 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 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner's application for licensure of a family day care home should be granted.
Findings Of Fact In June 2003, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for a license to operate a family day care home. Tim Graddy, an employee of the Respondent, inspected the Petitioner's home located at 1031 Herschell Street, Lakeland, Florida 33815 on June 19, 2003. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the Petitioner's home met applicable requirements for licensure as a family day care home. The Petitioner was present at all times during the inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, the Petitioner received a copy of the inspection report and was instructed to contact Mr. Graddy to arrange for a re-inspection after the deficiencies identified in the report were corrected. The inspection report indicates that the Petitioner's background screening information had not been provided to the Respondent by the date of the inspection. According to the inspection report, the Petitioner was to provide such information to the Respondent by no later than August 18, 2003. The inspection revealed that the Petitioner's First Aid and CPR training certifications had expired. According to the inspection report, the Petitioner was to provide renewed certifications to the Respondent by July 19, 2003. Mr. Graddy noted that there were unsecured wooden logs stacked in a play area outside of the house. Additionally, the play area abutted a trafficked road, and the chain-link fence was sagging and did not properly surround the play area. According to the inspection report, the logs were to be moved and the fence repaired by July 19, 2003. Inside the house, Mr. Graddy observed that two floor mats used for napping had tears in the impermeable surface covering and that a high chair seat was torn. Also, the First Aid kit did not contain rolled gauze and required emergency telephone numbers (the abuse hotline and the poison control center) were not posted by the telephone. According to the inspection report, the cited deficiencies were to be remedied by July 19, 2003. Mr. Graddy had no further contact with the Petitioner until sometime in October of 2003, when he received a telephone message indicating that the Petitioner had called. Mr. Graddy returned the call, but was unable to contact the Petitioner. He left a telephone message, but did not hear back from the Petitioner. On or about November 18, 2003, the Respondent issued a Notice of Denial of the Petitioner's license application. The Notice of Denial sets forth the reasons cited by the Respondent for denial of the application as follows: Your background screening results reveal a criminal history that causes the Department to believe you cannot provide a safe and nurturing environment for children because of the nature of the charges, and the frequency of the disqualifying offenses. On June 19, 2003 an inspection of your proposed family day care home revealed the following violations of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Your CPR and First Aid certification had expired; Rule 65C-20.009(2)(a), F.A.C. The outdoor play area had wooden logs that posed a safety hazard; Rule 65C- 20.010(1)(e), F.A.C. A section of the chain link fence was broken; Rule 65C-20.010(1)(f), F.A.C. Napping mats with tears in them; Rule 65C-20.010(1)(h), F.A.C. High chair with broken seat cover; Rule 65C-20.010(1)(o), F.A.C. Your first Aid Kit was incomplete; Rule 65C-20.010(3)(a), F.A.C. Emergency telephone numbers not posted, Rule 65C-20.010(3)(b)(1), F.A.C. At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent stated that Respondent was solely relying on the June 19, 2003, inspection report as grounds for denial of the Petitioner's application and withdrew the paragraph related to the Petitioner's alleged criminal history. The Petitioner testified at the hearing. During the testimony, the Petitioner stated that all the deficiencies cited in the inspection report had been addressed by the time of the hearing. The evidence establishes that some, but not all, of the deficiencies were corrected prior to issuance of the Notice of Denial. The background screening information was apparently provided prior to issuance of the Notice of Denial. The First Aid and CPR training certification was not renewed until February 21, 2004. Although the Petitioner testified that the logs were moved and the fence repaired, the evidence fails to establish whether the work was completed prior to the issuance of the Notice of Denial. The floor mats were discarded on the day of the inspection. The Petitioner testified that the high chair was discarded, that the rolled gauze has been replaced in the First Aid kit, and that the required telephone numbers have been posted. Because the Petitioner did not notify the Respondent until the date of the hearing that the deficiencies set forth in the inspection report have been remedied, there has been no inspection of the property to confirm that the repairs were appropriately made. There has been no inspection of the home since June 19, 2003.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for operation of a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Gwendolyn Brison 1031 Herschell Street Lakeland, Florida 33815 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Donna Vermeulen, is eligible to be relicensed as a family foster home.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed as a family foster home in Dade County, Florida, for approximately 19 years. The Respondent had received all of the training that was required for such a license. In 1997, Rosemary Bridges was a foster care counselor employed by the DCFS. In June of that year, Ms. Bridges was assigned to be the foster care counselor for three of the four foster children who were living with the Respondent at that time. Shortly after her assignment as foster care counselor for those children, Ms. Bridges made her first visit to the Respondent's home to check on the status of the children. On her fist visit to the Respondent's home, Ms. Bridges found the home to be untidy and unclean. There were clothes everywhere, dishes piled up, and no linen on the children's beds. The children all looked unkempt. The hair was not combed on any of the children. Ms. Bridges thought the general condition of the Respondent's home was potentially hazardous to the health of the foster children and she considered the possibility of removing the foster children from the home. On the day of Ms. Bridges' first visit, a therapist was also present. Ms. Bridges and the therapist discussed the situation with the Respondent. On that day the Respondent's arm was in a cast, and the Respondent explained that, because she had a broken arm, she was not able to take care of the house and the foster children as well as she usually did. The foster children had been with the Respondent for a long time, and the Respondent wanted them to continue to stay with her. Following the discussion with the Respondent, Ms. Bridges decided not to remove the foster children from the Respondent's home. Instead, Ms. Bridges made arrangements with the Children's Home Society for the Respondent to receive services for herself and for the foster children. Ms. Bridges returned to the Respondent's home a month later. The condition of the home was the same as it was during the June visit. The foster children were again unkempt and unclean. At the time of the visit, Ms. Bridges was also concerned about reports of inappropriate activities involving the foster children and one of the Respondent's two sons.2 Ms. Bridges and the children's therapist continued to work with the Respondent in an effort to improve the situation in the Respondent's home. Sara Leidtke is a mental health counselor who works primarily with children in foster homes, doing intensive on-site therapy. In February of 1997, Ms. Leidtke began providing therapy to three of the foster children in the Respondent's home. Ms. Leidtke continued to provide therapy twice a week to those children while they were living with the Respondent.3 All three of the foster children were supposed to be taking medication prescribed by a physician at the clinic where Ms. Leidtke worked. The medication was to treat hyperactivity and depression. One of the foster children was having nightly episodes of bed-wetting. On numerous occasions Ms. Leidtke recommended that the Respondent take that child to the enuresis clinic for treatment. The same recommendation was made by the physician who was treating the child's psychological problems. The Respondent never took that foster child to the enuresis clinic. From February of 1997 through August of 1997, Ms. Leidtke was concerned about the personal hygiene of the three foster children to whom she was providing therapy services. Ms. Leidtke described her concerns in the following words:4 All three of the children exhibited poor hygiene while in the Vermeulen home. Their clothes were often soiled, their hair dirty, and they were often unbathed with a strong body order. This therapist worked with them on this and gave Mrs. Vermeulen a hygiene checklist to utilize with them. The children spent a great deal of time working on this during therapy, but this therapist had difficulty getting Mrs. Vermeulen to follow through with checklists on days that therapy did not take place. On a number of occasions, the children stated that they were not able to attend to their hygiene because they did not have toothbrushes or other personal items. [J.] stated numerous times that she did not ever wash her hair, and that she did not use deodorant/antiperspirant because the family shared one roll-on deodorant and she did not want to use it or could not find it. When asked about these difficulties, Mrs. Vermeulen stated that the children were lying and that she was waiting on a check to buy the items that they needed. On two separate occasions, this therapist arranged for a PsychSolutions Activities Coordinator to come to the home to do the children's hair, but Mrs. Vermeulen canceled both appointments. In August of 1997, Ms. Bridges made another visit to the Respondent's home. Again, the condition of the home was the same as it had been on the two prior visits. Again, the foster children were unkempt and unclean. Ms. Bridges decided, primarily because of the lack of improvement in the condition of the home and the lack of improvement in the care of the foster children, that the foster children should be relocated to another foster home. In the course of making arrangements for the relocation, Ms. Bridges discovered a several month supply of prescription medicines for the three foster children. The amount of the prescription medicines in the home confirmed that the foster children had not been taking the medicines with the frequency prescribed by the physician. On August 29, 1998, when Ms. Leidtke arrived at the Respondent's home, she found that the Respondent's other son, M. V., was sitting at the Respondent's home visiting with the Respondent. M. V. is the Respondent's adopted son. In August of 1997, M. V. was 18 or 19 years old. On that day, M. V. had apparently escaped from a residential treatment program, where he had been confined for approximately four years. M. V. was being treated because, approximately four years earlier, he had sexually assaulted one of the Respondent's foster children, as well as the Respondent's adopted daughter. The foster child who had been sexually assaulted by M. V. was still living in the Respondent's home. M. V.'s presence in the home was very upsetting to that child. Later the same day, the police were called and the police returned M. V. to the treatment facility from which he had escaped. On August 29, 1997, the DCFS removed the foster children from the Respondent's home and placed them in another foster home.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying the Respondent's application for renewal of her family foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1999.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE is before me for entry of a Final Order. The reepatiment Clerk Order concluded that the Department's denial of petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care home was within the Department's discretion and was supported by a the weight of the evidence presented at the formal hearing. No exceptions to the Recommended Order have been filed. The Recommended Order is approved and adopted. | Accordingly, petitioner's application for a license to operate a family day care home pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes, is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, thise*f_ day of Ocfplec , 2005. Prbesoc 0. Don Winstead, Deputy Secretary Department of Children and Family Services RIGHT TO APPEAL A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Laurel Hopper Monalisa Nunziata District 15 Chief Legal Counsel 836 26" Ave.. Department of Children and Family Services Vero Beach, FL 32960 337 N. Fourth Street, 3rd Floor Fort Pierce, FL 34950 Tom Peer Ann Cole, Clerk Child Care Licensing Supervisor Division of Administrative Hearing Department of Children and Family Services The DeSoto Building 337 North Fourth St. 1230 Apalachee Parkway 337 North Fourth St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 Fort. Pierce, FL 34950 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this Final Order was provided to the above- named individuals at the listed addresses, by U.S. Mail, this 2S day of Qc fob , 2005. . oft Agency Clerk nt of Children and Families Ne
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be subject to administrative penalties, up to and including revocation of its group home license, for non-compliance with the residential facility requirements of Chapter 393, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the licensing and operation of foster care facilities, group home facilities, and residential habilitation centers. Respondent holds a group home facility license. The group home is located in Lake City, Florida. Ms. Amanda Houston is the operator of the group home. Ms. Houston is responsible in that capacity for compliance with statutes and rules relating to residential facilities. At all times material here, A.D. was a vulnerable 17-year-old female who resided at the group home. A.D. is mentally retarded and has significant behavior issues. Ms. Nigeria Taiwan Wills was a trusted employee of the group home for four or five years. On October 8, 2008, Ms. Wills was responsible for the supervision and care of the group home's disabled residents. On October 8, 2008, Ms. Wills began her shift at 2:00 p.m. and worked until 8:00 p.m. During at least part of that time, Ms. Wills was the only staff member present in the home. On October 8, 2007, while under the supervision of Ms. Wills, A.D. suffered significant injury to her buttock area. The next morning, Ms. Houston arrived at the group home around 6:30 a.m. Ms. Houston woke A.D. who dressed herself. Ms. Houston gave A.D. her medications. Ms. Houston did not notice any difference in A.D.'s demeanor. A.D. seemed normal in every way. The group home had four residents. Three of the clients, including A.D., rode a bus to school. On October 9, 2009, the bus arrived to pick up the clients at 8:10 a.m. It left the facility at 8:20 a.m. Ms. Houston was not aware of A.D.'s injury before the bus picked her up. On October 9, 2008, Ms. Wills visited the group home around 11:00 a.m. to pick up a piece of paper that she had left there the night before. While at the group home, Ms. Wills casually mentioned to Ms. Houston that she had an incident with A.D. the night before, that it was no big deal, and that she would tell Ms. Houston about it when she returned to work her shift that evening. Ms. Wills then left the group home. Ms. Wills did not have a home phone. All supervisory employees of the group home are trained to keep notes during every shift to record chronologically all events occurring at the group home. If an injury of any kind occurs, an employee is supposed to immediately fill out an incident report and call Ms. Houston. Ms. Houston knew that Ms. Wills had not filled out an incident report the night before. Ms. Houston read Ms. Wills' notes from the night before and, finding no reference to an incident with A.D., mistakenly assumed that whatever had happened truly was no big deal. This was not an unreasonable conclusion given Ms. Wills' long-term employment with no complaints and A.D.'s history of stealing and other behavior problems. In the mean time, Ms. Lanitra Sapp, a child protective investigator for the Department of Children and Family Services, received a call from A.D.'s school. Ms. Sapp subsequently visited the school, interviewed A.D., and observed bruising to her buttocks and upper thigh. Ms. Sapp concluded that the bruising was consistent with physical abuse. Ms. Sapp then took A.D. to her office. When A.D. did not get off the bus after school, Ms. Houston called the school, A.D.'s mother, and A.D.'s waiver support coordinator. Ms. Houston was unable to locate A.D. until she received a call from Ms. Sapp, asking Ms. Houston to go to Ms. Sapp's office. At Ms. Sapp's office, Ms. Houston and her husband, Adam Houston, first learned about A.D.'s injury. Mr. and Mrs. Houston were shocked at the degree of A.D.'s injury as reflected in photographs. After a short meeting, A.D. voluntarily rode with the Houstons to the group home. Ms. Sapp followed in her car. When the Houstons and Ms. Sapp arrived at the group home, the police were already there. Ms. Wills was also there. Ms. Houston left A.D. in the car with Mr. Houston before going into the group home. Ms. Wills talked to the police and Ms. Sapp in separate interviews. At some point, Ms. Wills told the police that she had spoken to Ms. Houston about the incident that morning. Ms. Houston admitted to the police and Ms. Sapp that Ms. Wills had made a reference to an incident that morning. Ms. Wills never admitted that she spanked A.D. with a belt. Ms. Houston placed Ms. Wills on administrative leave just before the police handcuffed her and took her to jail. Immediately thereafter, Ms. Houston prepared and sent an official incident report to Petitioner and A.D.'s waiver support coordinator. A.D. wanted to remain at the group home. Her mother and waiver support coordinator agreed. A.D. remained in that environment until March 2008, when Respondent lost its status as a Medicaid waiver provider. Ms. Houston never let Ms. Wills return to the group home. Instead, Ms. Houston paid Ms. Wills for one week of earned wages and one week of vacation time. This was the final pay check for Ms. Wills. Within days, Ms. Houston took A.D. to see her pediatrician for a medical evaluation. A week or so later, Ms. Sapp took A.D. for an evaluation by the Department of Children and Family Services child protection team. The Department of Children and Family Services subsequently issued a report containing verified findings of failure to protect against Mr. and Ms. Houston and maltreatment/physical injury against Ms. Wills.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent's license is not subject to discipline for failure to protect. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Waldman, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 1621 Northeast Waldo Road Gainesville, Florida 32609 Lloyd E. Peterson, Jr., Esquire 905 Southwest Baya Drive Lake City, Florida 32025 John Newton, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 James DeBeaugrine, Executive Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home (Respondent) should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Since 1994, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has operated the Respondent, which is located at 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida. On October 25, 2010, Mrs. Rodreguez filed an application with the Petitioner for registration of the Respondent. The previous registration had lapsed. Since 1992, and at all times material to this case, Mrs. Rodreguez has been married to her husband, Terry Rodreguez (Mr. Rodreguez). In 1990, Mr. Rodreguez was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and a concealed firearm. Mrs. Rodreguez was aware of her husband's criminal conviction. The registration application included a section where an applicant was directed to list "OTHER FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS." The application filed on October 25, 2010, by Mrs. Rodreguez disclosed only herself and her three children. Mrs. Rodreguez did not list her husband on the application. On June 23, 2010, a child protective investigator (CPI) commenced an unrelated investigation of the Respondent and went to the Lemon Street address. Mr. Rodreguez was present in the home when the CPI arrived. The CPI testified without contradiction that Mr. Rodreguez was uncooperative. She returned to the Respondent later that day accompanied by a law enforcement officer, but, when they arrived, Mr. Rodreguez was no longer present at the Respondent. On June 24, 2010, the CPI returned to the Lemon Street address, and Mr. Rodreguez was again present. During questioning by the CPI on that date, Mr. Rodreguez stated that he resided in the home. Additionally, Mrs. Rodreguez advised the CPI that she and her husband had separated, but acknowledged that she and her husband both resided at the home. At the hearing, Mrs. Rodreguez asserted that she has been separated from her husband for many years; however, she acknowledged that they remain legally married, that he uses her address as his legal address, and that her address is listed on his driver's license. She testified that he is homeless and that he returns to the house to see her children. Mr. Rodreguez was issued several traffic citations between January and July of 2010, and all of the citations identified his address as 2736 Lemon Street, Fort Myers, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the application for registration of the Tonya Rodreguez Registered Family Day Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, 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 13th day of April, 2011.
