The Issue The issue is whether Respondents' foster home license should be revoked because of inadequate supervision of foster children, as alleged in Petitioner's letter dated December 22, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), seeks to revoke the foster home license of Respondents, Wendy and David Palmer. In a letter dated December 22, 1998, DCFS alleged that Respondents allowed "foster children to be taken overnight over one hundred miles from [their] home with no supervision from [Respondents] as the licensed foster parents." The charging document went on to allege that their "neglect materially affected the safety and welfare of the children because they were given alcoholic beverages and were allowed to sleep with men." Respondents denied the allegations and requested a formal hearing to contest the proposed action. Their license has remained inoperative pending the outcome of this proceeding. Respondents have operated a foster home around six miles north of Altoona, Florida, since May 1994, caring mainly for teenage females who had "a lot of behavior problems" and had failed in prior placements. The home is licensed by DCFS under Section 409.175, Florida Statutes. Children were placed in their home by the Lake County Boys Ranch, a private organization which had a contract with DCFS to provide that service. On an undisclosed date, but prior to August 1998, three females, M. G., G. M., and D. W., were placed in Respondents' home. At that time, each of the girls was around fifteen years of age. G. M. had almost fifty prior placements, while D. W. had failed in "several" other placements. M. G. had also been in a number of "non-relative" placements, but the exact number is unknown. All three had a reputation of being difficult to handle and were considered "high-risk." None testified at the final hearing and thus any comments they may have made to a DCFS investigator are hearsay in nature. Respondents' daughter, Jamie, who was 21 years old when the events herein occurred, had been approved to serve as a respite provider at the foster home. This meant she could assist her parents by transporting the children to medical or visitation appointments and provide supervision in the home for a limited period of time. Examples of her duties included transporting the three girls to doctor's appointments, to lunch, or to the beach for recreational purposes. She considered her relationship with the girls to be "like sisters." On August 3, 1998, Jamie decided to travel to Hampton in Bradford County, Florida, in an extended cab pick-up truck to retrieve the remainder of her personal belongings from the residence of her former boyfriend, Scott, a 22-year-old male. Hampton is approximately 83 miles from Altoona, but the distance between the foster home and Scott's residence was no more than 75 miles or so. The one-way trip less took less than an hour and a half. Jamie spoke with her mother around 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. that day and received permission for the three girls to accompany her on the trip. The trip was perceived by Wendy Palmer as a recreational trip, and one that would enable the girls to build trust in the family since it allowed them to take a short trip away from their home and to return later that same day. Contrary to the charging document, this was not an illegitimate purpose, and Respondents' authorization of the trip at that point in time could not reasonably be forseen as an act which would materially affect the girls' health or welfare. Jamie was told to go straight to Hampton, pack her belongings, and then return. Jamie eventually departed the foster home between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. and arrived at Scott's residence shortly before 4:00 p.m. Although Scott was not at home when the group first arrived, he returned shortly thereafter with "two buddies," both adult males. A verbal argument between Scott and Jamie ensued, and Scott remained at the residence for several hours while the two discussed why their relationship had gone sour. Scott's two friends, however, remained outside the residence by his truck. Just before 6:00 p.m. Jamie telephoned her mother to advise that she had safely arrived in Hampton, that she was packing, that Scott was on the premises attempting to change her mind about leaving him, and that it looked like it was going to rain. Scott and his friends left a few minutes later, and even though Scott had a key to the residence, he and his friends did not return that evening. Before 9:00 p.m., Jamie again telephoned her mother to advise that it was storming, that she was upset after arguing with Scott, and that she was afraid to drive home in rainy weather at that hour with the girls. Accordingly, she asked permission to remain at Scott's residence that evening and drive home the first thing in the morning. Although Scott's residence was not a licensed, inspected, and approved foster home, Wendy Palmer agreed that under those extenuating circumstances, it was appropriate to remain in Hampton overnight. Wendy Palmer added that she would have driven to Hampton herself to retrieve the girls, but she did not wish to drive on two-lane roads in the rain at that late hour. Wendy Palmer's decision that evening technically violated her duty as a foster parent to provide round-the-clock supervision for the girls in a licensed foster home. Indeed, without the order of a court, foster children are not allowed to stay in an unlicensed home. After talking with her mother, Jamie drove to a local convenience store and purchased two Bud Lights in a can. She returned to the residence and consumed them herself. Contrary to the allegations in DCFS's letter dated December 22, 1998, the girls were not given alcoholic beverages. Also, Jamie did not allow adult males to enter the premises that evening. Further, they did not engage in sexual relations with other men. Indeed, except for the girls and Jamie, there was no one else present, and all four slept in the living room of the residence. Although Jamie allowed the three girls to smoke that evening, this conduct is not cited as a ground for revocation in the charging document. The next morning, Jamie telephoned her mother a third time and advised that they were getting ready to drive back to Altoona. The group returned a short time later. On October 9, 1998, or some two months later, the three girls ran away from the foster home and were eventually picked up by law enforcement authorities in Wildwood, Florida. At that time, D. W. made allegations for the first time that while in Hampton on the evening of August 3, 1998, the group had been given alcoholic beverages by Jamie, that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with friends of Scott, and that Jamie had become intoxicated. These allegations led to an investigation by DCFS and its decision to revoke Respondents' foster home license. They also resulted in a verified report of institutional neglect on November 2, 1998, which is found in abuse report 98-113392. DCFS takes the position that the trip had no legitimate purpose because the girls would receive no discernible benefit from the trip. This assertion has been rejected above. It further contends that the teenagers were placed at risk when Respondents allowed the girls to stay overnight with a respite worker in an unlicensed home. According to DCFS, the appropriate action would have been for the Palmers to advise Jamie to transport the girls to a "public shelter" in the area, or alternatively, for the Palmers to drive to Hampton that evening and pick them up. Because these latter steps were not followed, Respondents violated DCFS protocol, and they committed a negligent act within the meaning of the statute. During the four-year period in which Respondents served as foster parents, they provided outstanding care for foster children who were most at-risk, and all of whom had failed in prior placements. Other than this one incident, there are no blemishes on their record. Moreover, they have the continuing support and confidence of the private agency which makes local placements of foster children pursuant to a contract with DCFS. These considerations, as well as the extenuating circumstances which occurred on the evening of August 3, 1998, should be taken into account in determining whether Respondents' license should be disciplined.
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 determining that Respondents violated Section 409.175(8)(a)1., Florida Statutes, and that their foster home license be suspended for one year effective December 22, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John N. Spivey, Esquire 14550 U. S. Highway 441 Tavares, Florida 32778 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158
The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 393.0673(1), Florida Statutes (2018), Respondent, which holds a license to operate a group home facility, was identified in a verified report by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) as the perpetrator of exploitation of a vulnerable adult, failed to disclose on a renewal application a perpetrator of "the . . . abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult" (Maltreatment),1 and allowed a new employee to begin working at the group home before completing all of the background screening requirements; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, as authorized by the License, Respondent, a Florida not-for-profit corporation, has provided services to intellectually disabled persons residing at the Group Home. At all material times, Respondent's directors have been Etha Griffith, her daughter Kim Griffith, and Francis Griffith. The record does not disclose if Respondent has any members. Etha Griffith, who is 79 years old, serves as an officer and the onsite manager of the group home, for which Kim Griffith and Francis Griffith serve as the backup managers or supervisors of the Group Home. Petitioner presented no admissible evidence in support of Count I. Prominent among the excluded evidence is the Verified Report, as to which Petitioner failed to demonstrate its relevance, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, or its authenticity, given that it is unsigned and bears other indicia of an investigation that, although closed, was never completed.5 In support of Count II, Petitioner introduced the Application,6 which was filed on November 12, 2018. Etha Griffith7 completed the Application by providing the information requested on Petitioner's application form, which serves a natural person or legal entity who or that is an applicant or licensee seeking the issuance or renewal of a group home facility license (Application Form). Etha Griffith signed the Application as Respondent's designated representative, and her signature was notarized on November 8, 2018. The Application states the answer, "no," to the question posed in Section V, Item 2: "Have you or ownership controlling entity affiliated with this application ever been identified as responsible for the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child or the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult?" For several reasons, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the material facts in support of Count II. First, "no" was correct because the question refers to a determination, not allegation, of Maltreatment. The Application Form does not define "identified," whose common meaning is not "alleged," but "established,"8 such as after a completed investigation. As explained in endnote 5, the evidence fails to establish that DCF determined that Etha Griffith is the perpetrator of Maltreatment. Second, even if there had been a determination of Maltreatment in the Verified Report by November 12, 2018, "no" was not a willful or intentional misstatement or a false statement because neither Etha Griffith nor any other agent of Respondent knew about the Verified Report or DCF's determination of Maltreatment--and not for a lack of inquiry. Aware that an investigation had taken place during the summer of 2018, in October 2018, Kim Griffith contacted the DCF protective investigator who had conducted the investigation and asked for any findings. The investigator returned to her, not the Verified Report, but a Notice of Conclusion, stating only that the investigation was "complete" and "closed," and DCF had recommended no additional services. Etha Griffith has never received a copy of the Verified Report. No agent of Respondent knew anything about the Verified Report until preparing for the hearing in this case. On these facts, Etha Griffith and Respondent's other agents had no reason to think, as of November 12, 2018, that DCF had determined that Etha Griffith had perpetrated Maltreatment. Third, even if, by November 12, 2018, Etha Griffith were aware that DCF had determined that she had perpetrated Maltreatment, the failure to disclose this fact or the Verified Report was not material. An audit of the Group Home by Petitioner led to DCF's protective investigation, and the findings of the protective investigation, such as they were,9 implied that any misappropriation involved substantially smaller sums than those specified in the audit.10 Knowledge of the audit findings would thus include knowledge of the protective investigation findings. Fourth, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, "no" is correct because, in the question posed in Section V, Item 2, "you" refers to the applicant or licensee, and "ownership controlling entity affiliated with this application" does not effectively refer to Etha Griffith. The Application Form does not define these terms. Items 1, 3, and 4 also contain questions posed to "you." The questions in Items 1 and 3 alternatively address a "controlling entity affiliated with this application," so, except for dropping "ownership," the questions in Items 1 and 3 are directed to the same addressee as is the question in Item 2. The question in Item 4 is directed only to "you." All four of these items frame questions seeking potentially important information about past license discipline and adverse action involving the Medicaid and Medicare programs.11 Judging from her testimony at the hearing, Etha Griffith possesses modest language skills. Given the level of analysis required to determine the meaning of "you" and "ownership controlled entity affiliated with this application," Etha Griffith could not possibly have understood that the question in Section V, Item 2 addressed her. The two key issues in Count III are whether Ms. Meliard was an employee or a covered volunteer, as defined in the Conclusions of Law, and, if so, whether she had completed her local screening. Ms. Meliard did not testify, nor did Petitioner direct any questions to Kim Griffith as to Count III. Petitioner's investigator testified that, upon his unannounced arrival at the Group Home at 2:05 p.m. on January 1, 2019, he found Ms. Meliard "seated in a chair by the front window," presumably in a common area of the house, such as a living room. Tr., p. 63. Ms. Meliard was alone in the Group Home, as the residents typically returned from their day programs around 3:00 p.m. Tr., p. 63. On the investigator's arrival, Ms. Meliard called Etha Griffith, who arrived at the Group Home very shortly after the call. Tr., p. 64. On her arrival, Etha Griffith told the investigator that she was "trying to give [Ms. Meliard] a job." Tr., p. 64. The testimony recited in this paragraph is credited. Petitioner's witnesses were in conflict as to the screening that Ms. Meliard had cleared. Petitioner's operations management consultant testified that Ms. Meliard had not cleared level 1 or 2 screening. Tr., p. 44. Petitioner's investigator testified to the same effect, but immediately corrected himself by saying that she had cleared Level 2 screening, but not local screening. Tr., pp. 65-66. Petitioner is unable to produce documentary evidence of screenings because this material is confidential, even in hearings of this type, according to Petitioner's counsel. Tr., p. 46. When asked if Ms. Meliard had cleared her level 2 screening, Etha Griffith testified, "That is the one we got, yeah." Tr., p. 95. No one asked Etha Griffith directly if Ms. Meliard had not yet passed her local screening. In a clear-and-convincing case, no finding is possible based on the negative implication inherent in Etha Griffith's statement. Her modest communication skills and laconic communication style betray a lack of mental acuity, so no inference is possible by Etha Griffin's use of the definite article, "the." A personnel file, which may be opened for a candidate for employment, typically contains evidence of a local screening, which comprises an inquiry to the relevant local law enforcement agency and a response from the agency. Tr., p. 83. Proof of a failure to obtain a local screening thus depends on a negative-- the absence of documentation in the personnel file. Unable to recall clearly whether he had seen evidence of a level 2 screening, Petitioner's investigator testified that he recalled not seeing evidence in Ms. Meliard's personnel file of clearing the local screening. Tr., p. 83. The testimony on the issues of employment and local screening is too vague and uncertain to support findings by clear and convincing evidence that, on January 10, 2019, Ms. Meliard was employed by Respondent and had not passed her local screening. The investigator presented himself as exceptionally capable and articulate, but nothing in the record suggests that he investigated with any diligence the employment or local screening issues involving Ms. Meliard.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of all counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 2019.
The Issue The primary issue in this case is whether Respondent, a licensed group home operator, violated several statutes and rules governing such homes and their staffs, with most of the alleged offenses occurring, Petitioner charges, in connection with the accidental death of a resident. If Respondent is found guilty of any disciplinable offenses, then it will be necessary to determine the appropriate penalties for such violation(s).
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this action, Respondent Daniel Madistin LLC #1 ("DM1") held a Certificate of License, numbered 091867, which authorized DM1 to operate a group home for the developmentally disabled in West Palm Beach, Florida, for the one-year period from April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. DM1 had been licensed as a group home since 2009. DM1's facility (the "Home") could house up to six residents at a time. As a group home licensee, DM1 falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Agency for Persons with Disabilities ("APD"), which issued DM1's initial and annual renewal licenses and periodically inspected the Home. One of the Home's longtime residents was a young man named V.H.-D. This wheelchair-bound, nonverbal resident suffered from a number of medical conditions, including severe cerebral palsy, as a result of which he was unable to care for himself. The Home's staff, therefore, were required, among other things, to feed V.H.-D., whose difficulty swallowing solid foods had caused him to be placed, on doctor's orders, on a diet of puree as a precaution against choking. (V.H.-D.'s family had refused to consent to the placement of a feeding tube.) On the morning of Sunday, October 19, 2014, an employee of DM1, Pharah Murat, fed V.H.-D. his breakfast, as she had done many times since starting to work in the Home in June of 2014. Because V.H.-D. could not talk, he generally manifested satiety by regurgitating food and expelling it from his mouth, at which point the caregiver would clean him up. So, this day, when V.H.-D. began expelling food, Ms. Murat stopped feeding him and wiped his mouth, per the routine. The situation was not routine, however, as Ms. Murat soon realized. V.H.-D. became pale and nonresponsive and looked unwell. Concerned, Ms. Murat immediately called her supervisor, Daniel Madistin, the eponymous principal of DM1. Upon hearing Ms. Murat's description of V.H.-D.'s condition, Mr. Madistin, who was at church with his wife, ended the call and promptly dialed 911. Having thus summoned emergency medical services and law enforcement, Mr. Madistin rushed to the Home. Meantime, Ms. Murat and a fellow employee, Marie Cadet, attended to V.H.-D. as they awaited the arrival of the paramedics. The evidence, which is in conflict, persuades the undersigned to find that, more likely than not, Ms. Murat placed V.H.-D. on the floor and performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or tried to, although to what avail cannot be determined. Afterwards, she and Ms. Cadet returned V.H.-D. to his wheelchair and moved him from the dining room to the front door, so that the paramedics would be able to work on him without delay once they appeared, which they did within a matter of minutes. V.H.-D. was removed from the Home and taken by ambulance to the hospital, where he died from asphyxiation due to pulmonary aspiration of food secondary to cerebral palsy. APD contends that V.H.-D. was the victim of "neglect" because (a) Ms. Murat called Mr. Madistin, instead of 911, and (b) the staff failed to (i) recognize that V.H.-D was choking and (ii) handle an emergency situation promptly and intelligently. While there is no dispute that Ms. Murat called Mr. Madistin, there is no debate that she did so immediately upon realizing that V.H.-D. might be in distress, which she observed very quickly. The evidence does not establish whether or not Ms. Murat realized that V.H.-D. was choking, but it does clearly prove that she not only realized something was wrong, but also acted upon that recognition without delay. APD insinuates that by not calling 911 first, Ms. Murat increased the response time of the EMTs, to the detriment of V.H.-D. There is, however, no persuasive evidence that Ms. Murat's actions decreased the likelihood of V.H.-D.'s survival, nor is that a reasonable inference. To the contrary, it is more reasonable to infer, although not necessary to find, that Ms. Murat expedited the delivery of emergency medical services because she could converse in her primary language with Mr. Madistin, whose first language, too, is Creole, enabling the latter, who is fluent in English, to relay the relevant information efficiently to the 911 dispatcher. In addition, it should be mentioned that DM1's policy directed employees to call 911 in an emergency. So, even if Ms. Murat's failure to call 911 first amounted to neglect in this instance, which it did not, there is no basis in the evidence for holding the licensee responsible, for there is no evidence suggesting that DM1 knew or should have known that Ms. Murat would act as she did in a crisis. In any event, the evidence shows, and the undersigned finds, that Ms. Murat and Ms. Cadet acted with reasonable skill and efficiency in this emergency. In making this finding, the undersigned is mindful that direct care staff are not medical providers. Indeed, at the time DM1 hired Ms. Murat, a caregiver needed only an eighth-grade education to meet the minimum academic requirements,1/ and even under the current rule a high school diploma or its equivalent suffices.2/ The point is that it is unreasonable to expect a direct service provider in a group home, when responding to a medical emergency, to meet the standard of care applicable to a doctor, nurse, or EMT. No persuasive evidence in the instant record establishes the appropriate standard of care for direct service providers, but the undersigned is nevertheless able to determine, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the performance of DM1's staff, while probably falling short of heroic, was at least reasonable, and certainly not neglectful. After the EMTs had left for the hospital, Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office ("PBSO") deputies stayed behind at the Home to investigate. One of the officers tried to interview Ms. Murat, but she was reluctant to speak. Ms. Murat and Ms. Cadet are Haitian immigrants whose native tongue is Creole, and once the officers realized this, they called for the assistance of Deputy Vessage, a bilingual PBSO deputy who often serves as a translator in such instances. Deputy Vassage responded to this request and questioned the women in Creole, without incident. APD has alleged that Ms. Murat and Ms. Cadet were not fluent speakers of English and thus were incapable of communicating effectively in the official language of the state of Florida.3/ This allegation was not proved. That Ms. Murat insisted upon using her primary language when speaking with law enforcement officers, who were investigating a fatal event that had just recently occurred in her presence, shows good judgment, not a lack of communication skills. At any rate, the evidence persuades the undersigned to find that both women likely were able to speak English with sufficient proficiency to make themselves understood in ordinary circumstances. More important, however, as will be discussed below, the law does not require that direct service providers such as Ms. Murat and Ms. Cadet be capable of communicating effectively in English, but rather that they be capable of communicating effectively. Needless to say, speaking in English is not the only way to communicate effectively; nor, for that matter, is talking necessary for effective communication. APD investigated the circumstances surrounding the death of V.H.-D., and in so doing reviewed DM1's business records, including the personnel file for Ms. Murat. APD claims that DM1 failed to maintain written evidence of Ms. Murat's qualifications as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 65G-2.012(5)(b)(1978). This rule was substantially amended in 2014, however, and the recordkeeping requirement was repealed, effective July 1, 2014. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65G- 2.012 (2014). There is no persuasive evidence in this record to support a finding that DM1 failed to comply with the former version of rule 65G-2.012 while it was in effect.4/ It is undisputed that DM1 did not terminate Ms. Murat's employment, or otherwise discipline her, as a result of V.H.-D.'s death. On January 16, 2015, an APD employee named Sabah Bissainthe made an unscheduled visit to the Home to conduct an inspection. Upon her arrival, she encountered Sinclair Concin, who worked for DM1. Mr. Concin, who was not expecting visitors, called Mrs. Naomi Madistin for guidance when he realized that Ms. Bissainthe was a state employee performing official business. Mr. Concin put Ms. Bissainthe on the phone with Mrs. Madistin, and the two made arrangements for Mrs. Madistin to meet Ms. Bissainthe at the Home as soon as Mrs. Madistin could get there, which she did within an hour. Mrs. Madistin cooperated fully with Ms. Bissainthe. Ms. Bissainthe was not refused entry to the Home or forbidden from inspecting any part of the facility, contrary to APD's allegations. Mr. Concin's primary language is Creole, which Ms. Bissainthe does not speak. APD alleged that Mr. Concin does not speak English, but the evidence fails to prove that charge, which would not, at any rate, be a disciplinable offense, without more. APD further asserted that Mr. Concin is unable to communicate effectively because he did not converse in English with Ms. Bissainthe. The evidence shows, however, that Mr. Concin and Ms. Bissainthe did communicate effectively, notwithstanding that each spoke a different primary language, because Mr. Concin proved capable, in fact, of accomplishing the task when the circumstances required that he accommodate an APD investigator who had appeared unannounced at the doorstep of the Home. On February 18, 2015, an investigator from the Attorney General's office, Paul Valerio, paid an unannounced visit to the Home in connection with a matter unrelated to V.H.-D.'s death. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Madistin was on-site at the time, so Mr. Valerio called Mr. Madistin to let him know that an official investigation was under way. The two men agreed that Mr. Valerio would meet with Mrs. Madistin at the Home the next day, and that meeting took place as planned. Mrs. Madistin fully cooperated with Mr. Valerio, who completed his investigation without difficulty. The evidence does not establish that Mr. or Mrs. Madistin was unavailable or uncooperative, as APD charged. Ultimate Factual Determinations Neither Ms. Murat nor Ms. Cadet abused, neglected, exploited, or harmed V.H.-D., who received prompt and appropriate medical treatment on the day he died. Moreover, Ms. Murat and Ms. Cadet were mentally competent to perform their duties as direct service providers. The evidence, therefore, does not establish the violations of sections 393.13(3)(a), 393.13(3)(g), and 393.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes; and Florida Administrative Code Rules 65G-2.008(1)(h) and 65G-2.009(1)(d) set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence failed to establish that Ms. Murat and Ms. Cadet, or either of them, were (i) incapable of demonstrating effective communication or (ii) not mentally competent to perform their jobs as direct service providers. Thus, the violations of rules 65G-2.008(1)(g) and 65G- 2.008(1)(h) alleged in Count II were not proved. The charges brought in Count III of the Administrative Complaint are duplicative of the charges set forth in Count I and fail for the same reasons of fact. The charges in Count IV are based on allegations that DM1 failed to maintain adequate personnel records for Ms. Murat, in violation of outdated provisions Florida Administrative Code Rule 65G-2.012(5)(1978), which expired on July 1, 2014, when a new version of the rule took effect. The evidence failed to show that DM1 violated the former rule at any time during its existence. The charges brought in Count V of the Administrative Complaint are duplicative of the charges set forth in Count II and fail for the same reasons of fact. The allegations of Count VI largely overlap those of Counts I and III, with the additional allegation that DM1 failed to fire Ms. Murat or suspend her employment. While it is true that Ms. Murat was not punished as a result of V.H.-D.'s death, DM1's decision not to take such action does not constitute a disciplinable offense, and the remaining allegations of Count VI fail for the same reasons of fact that doom the charges set forth in Count I. The charges in Count VII are based on allegations that Sinclair Concin (i) was unable to communicate effectively with Sabah Bissainthe and (ii) refused to allow Ms. Bissainthe to enter the Home to conduct an investigation, thereby putting DM1 in violation of rules 65G-2.008(1)(g), 65G-2.008(1)(h), and 65G- 2.0032(3). The evidence showed, however, that Mr. Concin did communicate effectively with Ms. Bissainthe, and that he let her into the Home. Therefore, the charges were not proved. In Count VIII, APD charged DM1 with failure to have a facility operator (manager) on-site or on call at all times, in violation of rule 65G-2.012(1)(a). This charge was based on the allegation that when investigator Paul Valerio arrived at the Home for an unscheduled visit, neither Mr. Madistin nor his wife was in the residence. Mr. Valerio was able immediately to reach Mr. Madistin by phone, however, and make plans to meet with Mrs. Madistin the following day. Thus, the charge set forth in Count VIII was not proved.
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 finding that Daniel Madistin LLC #1 is not guilty of the offenses charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bertram Gould, is president and stockholder of Mohican Valley, Inc., d/b/a Indian Woods Subdivision. The Indian Woods Subdivision is located in Seminole County and consists of in excess of 150 subdivided lots. On May 20, 1982, Mohican Valley, Inc. purchased a mobile home park located in Seminole County, Florida, from Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation. The park was formerly known as Mohawk Village, but is now known as the Indian Woods Subdivision. Bertram Gould and Mohican Valley, Inc. acquired their interest in the subdivision by virtue of a purchase and sale agreement, deed and assignment of lease indentures from Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation. Individuals desiring to live in the mobile home park purchase their mobile home and contemporaneously sign a 99-year lease on the lots upon which the mobile homes are to be placed. The mobile homes purchased by prospective residents in the subdivision are typically purchased from Vaughn Motors, Inc., a corporation of which Mr. Gould is president. In 1981, Vaughn Motors, Inc. sold a mobile home to Alfred and Beverly Powers, which arrived at the park and was setup on November 30, 1981, or shortly thereafter. On March 1, 1982, Vaughn Motors, Inc. sold that mobile home to Warren E. and Sylvia Joyce Krummel, since the Powers had elected not to close the purchase. On the date of the sale to the Krummels, the mobile home was already setup on Lot 1, Block E, of the subdivision and ready for occupancy. On June 14, 1982, after the May 20 purchase of the subdivision by Mohican Valley, Inc, through its president, Bertram Gould, the Krummels executed an Indenture of Lease for Lot 1, Block E. There was thus a residential building on that property subject to the lease at the time the lease was entered into. On June 5, 1982, Dorothy Merritt signed a purchase agreement to buy a mobile home and the mobile home was delivered and setup on her lot on August 6, 1982. On that date she also signed a lease for the lot where the mobile home was placed. Thus, when the interest in that property was conveyed by lease, there was a residential building on the lot. Roy and Lydia Ardizzone initially leased a lot in the park from Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation before the sale to Mohican Valley, Inc. and Bertram Gould. In August, 1982, after Mohican Valley, Inc. purchased the subdivision, the Ardizzones decided to place a mobile home on their lot, but since the Phase II portion of the subdivision in which their original lot was located was not completely developed, it was not feasible to place the home on the lot at that time. Accordingly, they asked Mr. Gould to substitute their lot for a lot in Phase I in order to facilitate placing a home on the lot and begin living in the park. Mr. Gould agreed and the substitution occurred on August 31, 1982, on which date the Ardizzones also signed a lease for the lot. They ordered a mobile home to be placed on that lot, which arrived some 10 days later, on September 9, 1982. It was immediately setup on the Ardizzone's lot. Thus, at the time the lease of August 31, 1982, was executed by the Ardizzones and Bertram Gould, the Ardizzones had already ordered the mobile home for immediate delivery, which was delivered and setup some 10 days later. Thus, there was an obligation on the part of the Respondent to provide a mobile home to them in less than two years and indeed within days. On or about September 4, 1982, Bertram Gould caused a mobile home to be placed on Lot 3, Block B of the subdivision and had it prepared for occupancy. On November 5, 1982, George W. and Alice H. Woodward signed a purchase agreement for the mobile home and ultimately executed a lease for the lot upon which that mobile home sat on January 10, 1983. They moved into their home on or about February 17, 1983. Thus, at the time the lease was executed by the Woodwards and Respondent, a residential building was present on the property subject to the lease. Mohican Valley, Inc.'s predecessor in title, Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, had, during the course of its development of the mobile home park, entered into approximately 156 ground leases for mobile home lots. In conjunction with the acquisition of title to the park by Mohican Valley, Inc., Mohican Valley Inc. was assigned all rights of Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation in those 156 leases which had already been recorded by Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation prior to the acceptance of assignment by Mohican Valley, Inc. It was not established that Mohican Valley, Inc. or Bertram Gould had participated in any offer or disposition of the property which was the subject of those leases prior to Mohican Valley, Inc.'s acceptance of their assignment. Prior to May 20, 1982, the Respondent had no ownership interest in either the mobile home park or in Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, which owned and managed the Park. He was not an officer, director, employee, salesman or any type of agent for the owner of the mobile home subdivision prior to May 20, 1982. The only nexus between the Respondent and the mobile home park prior to May 20, 1982, was his position as president of Vaughn Motors, Inc. which had sold mobile homes to some of the residents of the park who had executed leases which ultimately became assigned to Mohican Valley, Inc. The Respondent caused certain advertisements to be placed in the Orlando Sentinel newspaper. Although an advertisement was placed April 25, 1982, the Respondent was not involved in the publishing of that advertisement. It appeared in the newspaper approximately a month prior to purchase of the park by Mr. Gould's company. On June 4 and 5, 1982; September 19, 1982; October 10, 1982; and January 29, 1983, the Respondent admittedly placed advertisements in the Orlando Sentinel representing amounts of monthly lot rent, terms of available bank financing, the office address, the phone number and hours of operation, as well as representing the fact that mobile homes could be purchased at the park for a listed price, including certain optional features, as well as the representation that the mobile home park then owned by Mohican Valley, Inc. offered quarter-acre lots and double-wide homes with certain amenities. The price for lot rent was represented as never increasing. Bank financing was advertised as available variously at 14 and a quarter percent interest and 13 and a half percent interest. The representations contained in those advertisements were true, however, at the time Mohican Valley, Inc. took title to the mobile home park, a foreclosure action and lis pendens had been filed on that property by Florida Land Company, the mortgagee on a mortgage executed by Winter Springs Mobile Home Corporation, Mohican Valley, Inc.'s predecessor in title. That foreclosure had been filed on or before March 21, 1983, as evidenced by the Motion to Intervene (in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4), which was filed in that foreclosure proceeding by Mohican Valley, Inc. No representation was made in these advertisements concerning the fact that the property which was the subject of the mobile home lot leases offered by Respondent was the subject of a mortgage encumbrance which was then in foreclosure, which foreclosure predated those advertisements. Bertram Gould, as president of Mohican Valley, Inc., as the movant in that Motion to Intervene, and as the successor in title to the mortgagor-in-foreclosure, knew of the existence of the facts surrounding that foreclosure as they related to the interest in the land he sought to convey and the effects such a foreclosure might have on the persons or residents of the park who executed those leases as lessee thereafter. Bertram Gould thus materially participated in the offer or disposition of the lots for lease in the subdivision and advertised those dispositions or offerings without representing that the real property to which they related was the subject of a pending foreclosure action. No reservation program has been approved by Petitioner for Bertram Gould, Mohican Valley, Inc. and/or Indian Woods, nor has any application for such been filed. No public offering statement for Bertram Gould, Mohican Valley, Inc. or Indian Woods, nor any application for such has, as of the time of the hearing, been filed and approved. The Indian Woods Subdivision has not been registered with the Petitioner by either Bertram Gould or Mohican Valley, Inc. Bertram Gould has engaged in the disposition of these subdivided lands directly as well as on behalf of Mohican Valley, Inc., of which corporation he is president and stockholder. Bertram Gould has offered, disposed of or participated in the offer or disposition of interests in the subdivided lands involved herein, which are located in Florida, by offering the subject land for leases to prospective mobile home purchasers and park residents.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That Bertram Gould be found guilty of violations of Sections 498.023(1) and (2), and Section 498.049(4) and Sections 498.051(1)(a), (b), and (d); that a penalty of $2,000 be imposed and that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist the above described activities until the requirements delineated above involving registration of the subject subdivision, approval and promulgation of a current offering statement have been accomplished. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 31st day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ladd H. Fassett, Esquire Post Office Box 2747 Orlando, Florida 32802 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Sherman Clarke, previously held a foster home license issued by the Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("the Department"). By letter dated August 11, 1995, the Department advised the Respondents that the Department would not be re-licensing their foster home. The letter stated the reasons for the Department's decision not to re-license the Respondent's foster home. The letter also included the following information: You are further advised that within 30 days of receipt of this letter you may contest the decision of this agency by requesting an administrative hearing pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Your request for an administrative hearing should be made by sending a written request to: Karen M. Miller District Legal Counsel 111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Third Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401 The Department's letter of August 11, 1995, was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. The letter was received by the Respondents on August 16, 1995. The Respondents waited until January 18, 1996, to request an administrative hearing. On that date they wrote and mailed a certified letter addressed to Karen M. Miller in which they, for the first time, requested an administrative hearing. The letter of January 18, 1996, was received by the Department a few days after it was mailed. The record in this case does not contain any explanation as to why the Respondents waited until January 18, 1996, to request an administrative hearing.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order in this case concluding that the Respondents waived their right to contest the Department's decision not to re-license their foster home. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine Linton, Esquire District 9 Legal Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Sapodilla Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mr. and Mrs. Sherman Clarke 509 44th Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 2, Room 204-X 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether, on three separate occasions, the Respondent raised the rent at Minerva Mobile Home Park without first delivering to the lessees an approved prospectus, as alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, Docket No. MH89446, issued on November 1, 1989; and (2), if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Haines City Investment, Inc., is the owner of Minerva Mobile Home Park located in Haines City, Florida. There are approximately 72 lots for lease in Minerva Mobile Home Park. On or about January 6, 1988, a Final Order was entered by the Petitioner finding, among other things, that the Respondent had raised the rent on lots in Minerva Mobile Home Park, effective January 1, 1986, without first filing a prospectus with the Petitioner (and therefore also without delivering to the homeowners an approved prospectus.) Among other things, the Final Order fined the Respondent $3,000 and ordered the Respondent to deliver an approved prospectus to each homeowner entitled to receive one within 15 days. During the pendency of a court appeal of the Final Order, on or about April 29, 1988, the Respondent entered into an Agreement to Remit Civil Penalty and Annual Fees. Effective January 1, 1987, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $11. Effective January 1, 1988, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $4.50. Effective January 1, 1989, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $6. Effective January 1, 1990, the Respondent increased the monthly lot rental in Minerva Mobile Home Park by $12.50, to $134.50 per month. The 11 homeowners who testified all paid all rent increases charged by the Respondent. The Respondent first filed a prospectus for Minerva Mobile Home Park for approval by the Petitioner in October, 1986. By this time, the Respondent had given the homeowners a copy of the proposed, but unapproved prospectus. However, the proposed prospectus was not approved by the Petitioner, and several revisions were made. The final revision was not approved until May 20, 1987. The approved prospectus was not delivered to the homeowners of the Minerva Mobile Home Park until some time in March, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order requiring that the Respondent refund the illegal rent increases to the homeowners (or former homeowners) in Minerva Mobile Home Park and requiring the Respondent to pay a $1,500 civil penalty. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of November, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra Roberts, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Albert Labossiere, President Haines City Investment, Inc. 2800 Minerva Park Haines City, Florida 33844 E. James Kearney, Director Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007
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
Findings Of Fact The Petition filed herein, among other matters, alleges, in pertinent part, that: This is a petition for determination of the invalidity of a proposed rule of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Fla. Stat. (1987). The 1,000 members of the FMHA may be sub- jected to this rule and Gerry Barding as an individual are substantially affected in that the rule has the effect of allowing the DBR to schedule a mediation or arbitration if the request "does not substantially comply with Chapter 723, Fla. Stat., and these rules." Section 723.037 limits the substantial rights of a party who fails to mediate or arbitrate a dispute under Section 723.037 with the DBR . . . . * * * The substantial rights of the members of FMHA will be affected if the DBR is allowed to grant mediation or arbitration requests when the mobile home owners have not complied with the provisions of Section 723.037, Fla. Stat. (1987). The proposed rule of the DBR enlarges, modifies, or otherwise contravenes the statu- tory authority granted by Chapter 723, Fla. Stat. (1987), and is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. Petitioner, FMHA, is an incorporated association not for profit whose members include approximately 1,000 mobile home park owners. All of the mobile home park members of FMHA own mobile home parks which contain greater than 25 mobile home lots which are offered for lease. A substantial number of the members of the FMHA on a regular basis annually increase the lot rental amount in their mobile home parks. The residents of the FMHA members' mobile home parks are entitled to and may request mediation of lot rental amount increases pursuant to Sections and 723.038, F.S. (1987), and the rules of the Florida Department of Business Regulation. Requests for mediation have been made in the past by homeowners residing in FMHA members' mobile home parks and many of those mediation proceedings have not yet been completed. Petitioner, Gerry Barding, is the owner of Pinelake Village Mobile Home Park located in Jensen Beach, Florida. In the past, Mr. Barding has increased the lot rental amount in Pinelake Village Mobile Home Park and expects to do so in the future. In September 1987, a request for mediation from Pinelake Village residents was not filed within 30 days of the meeting between the park owner and the residents. The Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes reviewed the request for mediation and determined that it was willing to mediate the dispute. The Division requested that Mr. Barding advise it of his willingness or refusal to participate in the mediation. Mr. Barding declined to agree to mediation of the dispute, and the mediation file of the Division was closed. Sections 723.037(4), F.S. (1987), provides in pertinent part that: Within 30 days of the date of the scheduled meeting described in subsection (3), the home owners shall request that the dispute be submitted to mediation pursuant to Section if a majority of the affected home owners have designated, in writing, that: The rental increase is unreasonable; The rental increase has made the lot rental amount unreasonable; The decrease in services or utilities is not accompanied by a corresponding decrease in rent or is otherwise unreasonable; or The change in the rules and regulations is unreasonable. [Emphasis supplied]. The Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes does not interpret Section 723.037(4), F.S., as depriving it of authority to mediate when the request for mediation is filed more than 30 days after the referenced meeting. Section 723.037(6), F.S., provides that: No action relating to a dispute described in this section may be filed in any court unless and until a request has been submitted to the Division for mediation and arbitration and the request has been processed in accordance with Section 723.038. Section 723.037(7), F.S., provides that: If a party refuses to agree to mediate or arbitrate, or fails to request mediation, upon proper request, that party shall not be entitled to attorney's fees in any action relating to a dispute described in this section. Section 723.004(4), F.S., provides that: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the enforcement of a right or duty under this section, Sections 723.022; 723.023; 723.031; 723.033; 723.035; 723.037; 723.038; 723.061; 723.0615; 723.062; 723.063; or 723.081 by civil action after the party has exhausted its administrative remedies, if any. Existing Rule 7D-32.005(3), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: The homeowners' committee shall request mediation, or the homeowners' committee and the park owner may jointly request arbitration, by mailing or delivering the following items to the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, 725 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007: A completed Form DBR 405, which becomes effective on the same date as this rule and which may be obtained by writing to the Division at the above address, and A copy of the written designation required by Rule 7D-32.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 723.037(4), Florida Statutes; and A copy of the notice of lot rental increase, reduction in services or utilities, or change in rules and regulations which is being challenged as unreasonable; and A copy of the records which verify the selection of the homeowners' committee in accordance with Rule 7D-32.003, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. [Emphasis supplied] Proposed Rule 7D-32.005(4), F.A.C., which was published in Volume 14, No. 4, Florida Administrative Law Weekly (January 29, 1988), and which is here challenged, provides that: A request for mediation or arbitration shall be denied if the request does not substantially comply with Chapter 723, Fla. Stat., and these rules. The word "may," which is struck through, is to be deleted from the existing rule now in effect. The underlining indicates that the words "shall" and "substantially" are amendatory language to be added. Rule 7D-32.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides: If the homeowners' committee requests media- tion, a copy of the four items required by subsection (3) of this rule shall be furnished to the park owner by Certified U. S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested, at the time the request is filed with the Division. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in a delay in scheduling of a mediation meeting until the required items have been furnished to the park owner. [Emphasis supplied] Rule 7D-32.005(6), Florida Administrative Code, provides: Within 10 days from the date that the park owner or his agent receives copies of the documents required to be furnished to him pursuant to subsection (5) of this rule, the park owner shall advise the Division in writing of his willingness or refusal to participate in the requested mediation. If the park owner is of the opinion that the home owners or the homeowners' committee have failed to satisfy the statutory requirements set forth in Section 723.037, Florida Statutes, or the requirements of these rules he may indicate his willingness to participate in the mediation process without waiving his objections to the procedures used by the homeowners' committee. Rule 7D-32.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A decision by the Division to grant or deny a request for mediation does not constitute an adjudication of any issues arising under Section 723.037, Florida Statutes. Any dispute concerning the applicability of Section 723.037(6)-(7), Florida Statutes, must be submitted to a court of competent jurisdiction in the event that judicial proceedings are initiated. Rule 7D-32.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides: `Mediation' means a process whereby a mediator provided by the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes partici- pates in discussions with a homeowners' committee and a park owner concerning the reasonableness of an increase in lot rental amount, change in park rules and regulations, or a decrease in services or utilities. The purpose of the mediator's participation is to assist the parties in arriving at a mutually agreeable settlement of their differences.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's foster care license should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was licensed by the Department to provide foster care for one child in the age group of 6 to 10. During the months of November and December, 1999, however, the Department had three infants and one toddler in Petitioner's care at Petitioner's small home. The youngest child placed in Petitioner's home by the Department was Domenica. When she was placed there, the Department did not tell Petitioner that Domenica had immune deficiency disease. On October 16, 1999, Petitioner's landlord began renovating the house. Over time, the central air conditioning system was replaced. When the workmen were on the roof making repairs, one of the workers stepped through a spot where the wood underneath was rotten, creating a hole in the kitchen ceiling. Wood around doorjambs unexpectedly needed replacement. As a tenant, Petitioner had no control over the speed with which the renovations to the house were accomplished. While the work was underway, the new kitchen appliances were stored in Petitioner's living/dining area. Although the house had three bedrooms, it was a small house. The extra appliances made the living/dining area very cluttered. The replacement bathtub and toilets were placed in the yard until they could be installed. At some points construction debris also lay in the yard until it could be removed. The only other items in the yard were a barbecue made from trashcans and several trash bags full of beer cans and soda cans that Petitioner collected when she went walking and later sold for extra money to spend on the children. During the morning of November 7, 1999, Petitioner took Domenica to a clinic where the doctor directed Petitioner to take her to the hospital. The child was very sick and was admitted to the hospital. While she was at the hospital with the infant, Petitioner's mother passed away. The following day a Department employee made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's home. That employee noted that the yard was cluttered and the house was cluttered and dirty. She told Petitioner to clean her house, which Petitioner did. While attending her mother's funeral, Petitioner learned that one of her sons had terminal cancer. That son came to stay at Petitioner's home the Friday before Thanksgiving and was there through the end of December, except for several hospital admissions during that time period. On December 27, 1999, three Department employees went to Petitioner's house for an unannounced site visit. The two who testified at the final hearing thought it noteworthy that Petitioner made them wait while she searched for her keys before admitting them. They also testified that a dog in the front yard had fleas. The dog was not Petitioner's. When Petitioner admitted the three employees, she had just finished taking down the Christmas tree and was in the process of cleaning the living/dining area. She held a large trash bag in her hand and continued putting the wrappings and boxes from gifts into the trash bag. The Department employees looked at tar from the roof that had been tracked onto the carpet and determined that it was dog feces. They noted that the house was very small and cluttered and saw the hole in the ceiling in the kitchen. They determined that the house was not safe for children. They saw the bathroom fixtures and the beer cans and soda cans in the yard and determined that the yard was not safe for the children to play outside. No consideration was given to the fact that the house was undergoing renovations or the fact that it would be unusual for anyone to have infants playing in a yard. Although the employees concluded that Petitioner's home constituted an "unsanitary" condition, they did note that the bedroom and bathroom used for the children were clean, that the sheets in the cribs were clean, and that the children's clothes were clean and neatly folded. Petitioner had placed one of the infants in a child seat in the living area so she could watch him while she was cleaning the house. One of the Department employees unreasonably feared that Petitioner could not get to the child quickly enough if there were a problem, due to the clutter. The child in the dining/living area was the only one at home when the Department's employees were there. Petitioner's sister had taken the other children to her home so that Petitioner could clean the house after Christmas. Petitioner's sister was her Departmentally-approved back-up, i.e., someone approved to care for the children if Petitioner were unable. Petitioner did not know that since her sister had just recently closed her own foster home, which had been licensed by the Department, her sister was no longer permitted to have Petitioner's foster children in her home but could only look after them in Petitioner's home. The Department employees went to Petitioner's sister's home and determined that the children were safe. They summoned other Department employees to remove the children from the care of both Petitioner and Petitioner's sister. A Department caseworker visited Petitioner's home on August 11, 1999; October 20, 1999; and November 17, 1999. That employee filed with the Department reports verifying that the condition of the home was acceptable; that the environment was safe for the children; that the children were healthy and well fed; that there were no signs of neglect or abuse; and that the children were appropriately placed in Petitioner's home. The forms completed by that caseworker contain an acknowledgement that the forms were accurately and truthfully completed under penalty of termination of employment. Petitioner now lives in her mother's home, which is much larger than the house she was renting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's request to renew her foster home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 8th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Lyles 14501 Polk Street Miami, Florida 33176 Rosemarie Rinaldi, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue, N-10-14 Miami, Florida 33128 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Respondent should be subject to administrative penalties, including an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000.00, for failure to comply with the residential facility requirements of chapter 393, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 12, 2009.
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of foster care facilities, group home facilities, and residential habilitation pursuant to section 20.197 and chapter 393, Florida Statutes (2009). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held one group home facility license issued by APD for a residence at 12629 Southwest Archer Lane, Archer, Florida 32618. The group home is owned and operated by Miles Hines. C.H. is a child client of APD who has been diagnosed with moderate mental retardation and bipolar disorder. C.H. has a history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, post- traumatic stress disorder, and depression. At all times relevant to this proceeding, C.H. was a resident at the Jim Tin Group Home. M.K. is an adult client of APD who has been diagnosed with, among other conditions, mental retardation. At all times relevant to this proceeding, M.K. was a resident at the Jim Tin Group Home. APD alleged that M.K. sexually abused C.H. at the Jim Tin Group Home on or about January 14, 2009. APD produced no direct evidence in support of the allegation. APD relied solely on the written investigative report of a "Child Institutional Investigation" conducted by DCF protective investigator Natalie Rella between January 14 and March 11, 2009. Ms. Rella's report was reviewed and approved by her supervisor, Cheryl Hollingsworth. Ms. Rella did not testify at the hearing. None of the persons interviewed by Ms. Rella testified at the hearing. Ms. Hollingsworth testified that she did not personally participate in any of the interviews that formed the basis of Ms. Rella's report, nor did she independently investigate the abuse report that triggered the investigation. Ms. Hollingsworth relied entirely on Ms. Rella's report and Ms. Rella's conclusion that there were verified findings of inadequate supervision by Mr. Hines. Ms. Rella's report stated that its findings were based on an interview with M.K., an interview of C.H. conducted by the Child Advocacy Center, and her review of prior reports. No transcript or other account of the substance of the interviews was entered into evidence. The "narrative" portion of Ms. Rella's report stated as follows: [C.H.] is intellectual disabled [sic]. [C.H.] is high functioning but he has a lot of problems. On the night of 01/14/09, a resident tried to grab [C.H.'s] hand and put it between his legs. The resident told [C.H.] to suck his penis. [C.H.] did not but he told the supervisor who said, "I did not see it happen so there is nothing they can do." [C.H.] has spoken with the staff in the past about the resident's behavior. In the past, the other resident has tried to sexually aggress upon [C.H.]. The advances happened for a while but they stopped. The sexual advances have picked back up in the last couple of weeks. [C.H.] is frightened and scared of the resident. Ms. Rella's report contained a "prior reports" section describing previous investigations involving the same residents. One of these incidents involved a report by C.H. that he had been raped by two men and that another man had sucked C.H.'s penis while the child was at a DJJ facility. This claim was determined to be not substantiated. There were cameras in the room where the assaults were alleged to have occurred. The cameras proved that the assaults never took place. Americo Rodrigues is a certified behavior analyst with Choice Behavior Services, LLC in Gainesville. He has been C.H.'s behavior analyst since 2008 and visits C.H. weekly at the Jim Tin Group Home. Mr. Rodrigues testified that among C.H.'s behavioral problems is a propensity for making false allegations against other residents. C.H. is also very suggestible and easily led to agree with what someone tells him. Mr. Rodrigues stated that he is working with C.H. on these problems, but that they have proven relatively intractable. Mr. Rodrigues had no firsthand knowledge of the events alleged to have occurred at Jim Tin Group Home on January 14, 2009. Mr. Rodrigues testified that his impressions of the group home were that the accommodations and food seemed appropriate, and that facility staff appeared to be ensuring that the residents' activities of daily living were adequately maintained. During cross-examination, Ms. Hollingsworth conceded that C.H. changed his story during the course of the investigation. C.H. recanted his allegation and denied that he and M.K. ever engaged sexually. Ms. Hollingsworth testified that Ms. Rella had failed to conduct a site visit of the group home, that she never interviewed C.H.'s support coordinator or counselor, and that she never interviewed Mr. Hines. Ms. Rella spoke to no one who had dealt with C.H. over an extended period of time or who could provide perspective as to the child's historic patterns of behavior. Ms. Hollingsworth testified that, based on what she knew now, her recommendation would be to find that the allegations made by C.H. were "not substantiated." In fact, she had made a request to DCF headquarters in Tallahassee to change the conclusion in Ms. Rella's report. Jim Smith, APD's Area 3 administrator, testified that APD filed its complaint against Respondent in complete reliance on DCF's finding of a verified incident of inadequate supervision. APD does not conduct its own investigations and does not review DCF's reports for accuracy. Had DCF found that the allegations against Respondent were "not substantiated," APD would not have filed the Administrative Complaint that initiated this proceeding. The DCF investigative report is a hearsay document. It was admitted into evidence for the limited purpose of supplementing Ms. Hollingsworth's testimony that DCF had in fact "verified" the abuse complaint. APD argued that the report should be admitted for all purposes under the business records exception set forth in section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes. This argument is unavailing because C.H., the main source of information for the report, showed a lack of trustworthiness. APD has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to adequately supervise residents and sufficiently protect them from harm, neglect, and sexual abuse.
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Waldman, Esquire Agency for Person with Disabilities 1621 Northeast Waldo Road Gainesville, Florida 32609 M. Todd Hingson, Esquire Avera & Smith, LLP 248 North Marion Avenue, Suite 102 Lake City, Florida 32055 Christina Nieto Seifert, Esquire Avera & Smith, LLP 248 North Marion Avenue Suite 102 Lake City, Florida 32055 Percy W. Mallison, Jr., Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Michael Palecki, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Bryan Vaughan, Acting Executive Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
