06-000537 Helena Mcintyre vs. Department Of Children And Family Services
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, February 9, 2007.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner, who allowed a convicted sex offender to frequently visit the licensed home and whose conduct posed a threat, is a valid basis for disallowing the adoption of a child and the renewal of her license.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8HELENA MCINTYRE, )

11)

12Petitioner, )

14)

15vs. ) Case Nos. 06-0347

20) 06-0537

22DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN )

26AND FAMILY SERVICES, )

30)

31Respondent. )

33_________________________________)

34RECOMMENDED ORDER

36Pursuant to notice a formal hearing was held on September 7,

472006, by video teleconference with the parties appearing from

56Miami, Florida, before J. D. Parrish, a designated Administrative

65Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

73APPEARANCES

74For Petitioner: Greer Davis Wallace, Esquire

80Law Office of Greer Davis Wallace

861450 North Krome Avenue, Suite 101G

92Florida City, Florida 33034-2400

96For Respondent: Rosemarie Rinaldi, Esquire

101Department of Children and Family Services

107401 Northwest Second Avenue, N-1014

112Miami, Florida 33128

115STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

119The issue in DOAH Case No. 06-0347 is whether the

129Petitioner, Helena McIntyre (Petitioner) is entitled to the

137renewal of her foster care license.

143The issue in DOAH Case No. 06-0537 is whether the Petitioner

154is entitled to adopt a child placed in her home previously under

166a foster parent license that has since been denied for renewal

177(DOAH Case No. 06-0347).

181PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

183These cases were consolidated for hearing by Order entered

192February 28, 2006. On or about November 3, 2005, the Department

203of Children and Families (Respondent or Department) issued a

212Notice of Intent to Deny Adoption Application. The Petitioner’s

221request to adopt was denied based upon the same factual

231information that had been asserted in a foster home non-renewal;

241that is: that the Petitioner had allowed a sexual offender with

252a history of sexual battery on a child under twelve years of age,

265to either reside in her home or to frequent the foster home. As

278to the foster home license (DOAH Case No. 06-0347), the

288Department had issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Foster Home

299License Renewal on or about May 20, 2005. As to both matters,

311the Respondent maintains that the Petitioner provided an

319inappropriate environment for any foster child placed in her

328care. Moreover, the Respondent averred that by having the sexual

338offender around the home the Petitioner showed a lack of concern

349for, and disregarded the welfare of, the children by putting them

360at risk.

362The Petitioner timely challenged the Respondent’s decisions

369and sought administrative hearings. DOAH Case No. 06-0347 was

378referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on

386January 26, 2006. DOAH Case No. 06-0537 was referred on

396February 10, 2006. The hearing in the matter was originally

406scheduled for April 3, 2006, but was continued at the parties’

417requests on three occasions. The matter was ultimately heard on

427September 7, 2006.

430The Respondent presented testimony from Duray Smith, Ada

438Gonzalez, Ronnita Waters, Katrella Smalls, and Sylvia Diez. The

447Petitioner also testified. The Respondent’s Exhibits 1-6 were

455admitted into evidence. A transcript of the proceedings was

464filed on December 26, 2006. Thereafter, the parties requested

473and were granted leave until January 19, 2007, to file proposed

484recommended orders.

486The Respondent’s Proposed Recommended Order was filed

493January 19, 2007. The Petitioner did not file a proposal. The

504findings of fact and conclusions of law that follow apply to all

516matters at issue in these consolidated cases.

523FINDINGS OF FACT

5261. The Petitioner has been a licensed foster care parent

536since 1993. Prior to the instant denial, the Petitioner’s

545license has been renewed on every occasion.

5522. P., a minor, was placed in the Petitioner’s home in

5632000. Also in the Petitioner’s home at that time were minor twin

575brothers, M. and M.

5793. In the fall of 2003, the Petitioner became friends with

590Jimmie Lee Hodgest, a convicted sex offender. Mr. Hodgest pled

600guilty to three counts of sexual battery on a seven-year old

611girl. After serving his prison sentence, Mr. Hodgest was

620released and placed on parole.

6254. At all times material to the allegations in these cases,

636Mr. Hodgest was required to report to his probation officer,

646Sylvia Diez.

6485. According to Ms. Diez, when she became aware of the

659friendship between Mr. Hodgest and the Petitioner, she asked to

669meet the Petitioner so that she could explain the offender’s

679criminal history. Basically, Ms. Diez wanted the Petitioner to

688understand that she would be checking on Mr. Hodgest to assure he

700was complying with the terms of his parole. Also, Ms. Diez

711wanted to verify that Mr. Hodgest would not be left unsupervised

722with children.

7246. To that end Ms. Diez went to the Petitioner’s home to

736warn the Petitioner about Mr. Hodgest. Ms. Diez saw Mr. Hodgest

747at the Petitioner’s home on four or five occasions.

7567. Most troubling to Ms. Diez, however, was an incident in

767June of 2004, when she dropped by the Petitioner’s home at

7788:21 p.m. and found him alone there.

7858. Additionally, on September 29, 2004, at 9:47 p.m.,

794Ms. Diez went to the Petitioner’s home and found her in either a

807nightgown or housecoat with Mr. Hodgest upstairs in the bedroom

817area of the home. Mr. Hodgest came downstairs to speak with

828Ms. Diez. At that time no one represented that the Petitioner

839and Mr. Hodgest were painting the upstairs.

8469. In 2004, Duray Smith conducted an investigation

854regarding an allegation that the Petitioner allowed a convicted

863sex offender in her home. Mr. Smith is a Child Protective

874Investigator employed by the Department.

87910. When Mr. Smith interviewed the Petitioner regarding

887Mr. Hodgest, she admitted knowing the offender but stated that he

898was merely her yard man. Further, since from the neighbors, the

909children, and everyone he interviewed, Mr. Smith was unable to

919verify that the offender was in the home, the allegation was

930closed with no indicators.

93411. Then, in 2005, Mr. Smith received a second allegation

944of similar conduct. The claim alleged that Mr. Hodgest was

954frequenting the home such that the children might be at risk.

96512. When the 2005 investigation ensued, Mr. Smith

973interviewed a neighbor who represented that a male did frequent

983the Petitioner’s home. Mr. Smith was later able to ascertain

993that the male was Mr. Hodgest. In fact, a child in the home

1006advised Mr. Smith that Mr. Hodgest “naps” at the house. It

1017cannot be determined if Mr. Hodgest did, in fact, take naps at

1029the home.

103113. When Mr. Smith confronted the Petitioner with the

1040allegation, she stated that the offender was never at the home

1051unsupervised. The Petitioner admitted that the offender cooked

1059at the home but maintained that she was also in the home at the

1073time (albeit in a different room).

107914. From the admissions of the Petitioner (that the

1088offender was inside the home), the comments of others, and his

1099verification that the offender had been frequenting the home for

1109approximately two weeks, Mr. Smith filed a petition to take

1119action to protect the children in the Petitioner’s home.

112815. That action removed the foster children from the

1137Petitioner’s home.

113916. Mr. Smith believed that all of the children in the

1150Petitioner’s home were at risk of being harmed.

115817. There was never an allegation of, or evidence of, any

1169actual physical abuse to the children in the Petitioner’s home.

1179All of the concerns raised by the Department were related to a

1191risk of harm based upon the offender’s past criminal conduct.

120118. Mr. Smith’s sole responsibility in this regard was to

1211investigate an allegation and to report on it. Mr. Smith did not

1223investigate the terms of Mr. Hodgest’s probation. Similarly,

1231Mr. Smith did not investigate whether or not the Petitioner’s

1241foster home license should be renewed.

124719. Ada Gonzalez, however, was responsible for reviewing

1255the foster home license. When Ms. Gonzalez learned of a second

1266allegation regarding the Petitioner’s home had been confirmed, a

1275staffing was scheduled to consider the status of the Petitioner’s

1285foster home license.

128820. According to Ms. Gonzalez, the Petitioner had an

1297affirmative duty to notify the Department of persons within the

1307licensed home who may affect the foster child’s welfare.

1316Ms. Gonzalez was concerned that the Petitioner had been less than

1327candid in disclosing her relationship with the offender and his

1337presence in the Petitioner’s home.

134221. The Bilateral Service Agreement between the Department

1350and the Petitioner provided foster parent responsibilities owed

1358to the Department. Those responsibilities included:

1364d. To notify the department immediately of a

1372potential change in address, living

1377arrangements, martial status, family

1381composition (who is in the home), employment,

1388significant health changes or any other

1394condition that may affect the child’s well

1401being.

1402e. To notify the department promptly of all

1410contacts the family or any member of the home

1419has with the police or any law enforcement

1427agencies.

142822. The Bilateral Service Agreement also provided that:

1436Non-compliance with any of the above

1442provisions may result in administrative

1447action by the department which could include

1454corrective action, suspension, revocation or

1459denial of further licensure pursuant to

1465Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

146923. The Petitioner did not notify the Department that

1478someone who frequented her home was required to be monitored by

1489law enforcement. The Petitioner also did not notify the

1498Department that she had been contacted by Mr. Hodgest’s probation

1508officer. Ms. Gonzalez believed that the Petitioner had an

1517affirmative duty to disclose the probation status of Mr. Hodgest

1527since he was frequently at the home.

153424. Following the action initiated by Mr. Smith, the minor

1544children in the Petitioner’s home were removed and a juvenile

1554court judge adjudicated them dependent. The minor child, P., who

1564is the subject of the instant adoption request was placed in

1575another foster home.

157825. The Petitioner has denied that the offender was her

1588boyfriend and that he was left unsupervised in the home with the

1600children. The Petitioner acknowledged that she did not notify

1609anyone that Mr. Hodgest was frequently at the home.

161826. The weight of the credible evidence dictates a finding

1628that the Petitioner and Mr. Hodgest were not merely in an

1639employer/employee relationship. The Petitioner’s representation

1644that Mr. Hodgest was “the yard man” is not credible. Moreover,

1655the Petitioner knew or should have known that an individual with

1666Mr. Hodgest’s criminal record would be a concern to the

1676Department. As early as 2004, the Petitioner was put on notice

1687that an allegation of concern had been raised.

169527. The Petitioner did not remove Mr. Hodgest from access

1705to her home (in fact his visits became more frequent over time),

1717did not acknowledge that Mr. Hodgest could pose a threat to the

1729children in her care, and did not seek counsel from the foster

1741care authorities regarding the offender’s connection to the

1749licensed home.

1751CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

175428. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1761jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of,

1771these proceedings. § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). See also

1780§ 409.175, Fla. Stat. (2005).

178529. As the applicant, the Petitioner bears the burden of

1795proof with regard to her application for adoption. See Florida

1805Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc. , 396 So. 2d

1815778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Nevertheless, since the Department

1824bears the burden of proof as to the denial of the renewal of the

1838foster care license, the evidence has been reviewed in that

1848context. It is, therefore, concluded that if the foster care

1858license should not be renewed, the Petitioner cannot establish

1867she is entitled to the approval of the adoption sought. This

1878conclusion is reached as the only factual basis for the denial of

1890the foster care renewal is identical to the factual basis for the

1902denial of the Petitioner’s request to adopt.

190930. Section 409.175(9), Florida Statutes (2005), sets forth

1917the following provisions regarding foster home licenses:

1924(9)(a) The department may deny, suspend, or

1931revoke a license.

1934(b) Any of the following actions by a home

1943or agency or its personnel is a ground for

1952denial, suspension, or revocation of a

1958license:

19591. An intentional or negligent act

1965materially affecting the health or safety of

1972children in the home or agency.

19782. A violation of the provisions of this

1986section or of licensing rules promulgated

1992pursuant to this section.

19963. Noncompliance with the requirements for

2002good moral character as specified in

2008paragraph (5)(a).

20104. Failure to dismiss personnel found in

2017noncompliance with requirements for good

2022moral character.

202431. Additionally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-

203113.010, provides, in pertinent part:

2036(4) Responsibilities of the Substitute Care

2042Parents to the Department.

2046(a) The substitute care parents are required

2053to participate in 30 hours of GPS-MAPP

2060training and at least eight hours of

2067in-service training annually which is

2072provided or approved by the department in

2079order to develop and enhance their skills.

2086(b) The substitute care parents are required

2093to participate with the department in

2099relicensing studies and in ongoing monitoring

2105of their home, and must provide sufficient

2112information for the department to verify

2118compliance with all rules and regulations.

2124* * *

2127(e) The substitute care parents must sign an

2135agreement to provide foster care for

2141dependent children for each child placed in

2148their home.

2150* * *

2153(g) The substitute care parents must notify

2160the department regarding changes which affect

2166the life and circumstances of the

2172shelter or foster family.

217632. Section 409.175(6), Florida Statutes (2005), also

2183states in part:

2186(c) A licensed family foster home, child-

2193placing agency, or residential child-caring

2198agency which applies for renewal of its

2205license shall submit to the department a list

2213of personnel who have worked on a continuous

2221basis at the applicant family foster home or

2229agency since submitting fingerprints to the

2235department, identifying those for whom a

2241written assurance of compliance was provided

2247by the department and identifying those

2253personnel who have recently begun working at

2260the family foster home or agency and are

2268awaiting the results of the required

2274fingerprint check, along with the date of the

2282submission of those fingerprints for

2287processing. The department shall by rule

2293determine the frequency of requests to the

2300Department of Law Enforcement to run state

2307criminal records checks for such personnel

2313except for those personnel awaiting the

2319results of initial fingerprint checks for

2325employment at the applicant family foster

2331home or agency.

2334(d)1. The department may pursue other

2340remedies provided in this section in addition

2347to denial or revocation of a license for

2355failure to comply with the screening

2361requirements. The disciplinary actions

2365determination to be made by the department

2372and the procedure for hearing for applicants

2379and licensees shall be in accordance with

2386chapter 120.

23882. When the department has reasonable cause

2395to believe that grounds for denial or

2402termination of employment exist, it shall

2408notify, in writing, the applicant, licensee,

2414or summer or recreation camp, and the

2421personnel affected, stating the specific

2426record which indicates noncompliance with the

2432screening requirements.

24343. Procedures established for hearing under

2440chapter 120 shall be available to the

2447applicant, licensee, summer day camp, or

2453summer 24-hour camp, and affected personnel,

2459in order to present evidence relating either

2466to the accuracy of the basis for exclusion or

2475to the denial of an exemption from

2482disqualification.

24834. Refusal on the part of an applicant to

2492dismiss personnel who have been found not to

2500be in compliance with the requirements for

2507good moral character of personnel shall

2513result in automatic denial or revocation of

2520license in addition to any other remedies

2527provided in this section which may be pursued

2535by the department.

253833. In these cases, the Petitioner failed to notify the

2548Department that Mr. Hodgest was frequently on the licensed

2557premises. Whether Mr. Hodgest was present as a friend or

2567employee, his physical occupation of the licensed premises is a

2577valid concern. Mr. Hodgest is a convicted sex offender. If he

2588was merely an employee (doing chores such as mowing the lawn,

2599painting, or cooking food), his employment should have been

2608disclosed to the Department. If he was, in fact, a friend to the

2621Petitioner his frequent presence at the licensed home should have

2631been disclosed to the Department. Either way the Petitioner

2640failed to abide by the terms of her agreement with the

2651Department.

265234. More critical, however, is the fact that the Petitioner

2662failed to appreciate the risk of harm that Mr. Hodgest posed to

2674the foster family. Mr. Hodgest was on probation for a very

2685serious offense. That the Petitioner could fail to remove

2694Mr. Hodgest from access to her home indicates that she does not

2706fully comprehend her responsibilities to the Department and to

2715the foster children placed in her care. Best case suggests that

2726this Petitioner used poor judgment. A less charitable review

2735would suggest the Petitioner hoped to achieve the adoption of the

2746child before the Department realized that the convicted offender

2755would be in proximity to the family. Although the latter

2765conclusion is not reached, the severity of the Petitioner’s lapse

2775of judgment does pose valid concern. It is concluded that this

2786Petitioner exercised very poor judgment in allowing the offender

2795to come to her home.

280035. In Florida adoption is a statutory privilege that is

2810granted only if the adoption is in the best interest of the child

2823to be adopted. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-16.002. Among the

2834criteria to be considered when evaluating a prospective adoptive

2843parent is the history of the foster home. Instances of

2853indicators for neglect, violations of licensing standards, or

2861questions concerning the applicant’s “good moral character,” may

2870jeopardize approval. See Rule 65C-16.005, F.A.C.

287636. In these cases the Department has presented credible

2885reasons for the denial of the Petitioner’s application for

2894adoption. The Petitioner’s failure to comply with the foster

2903home agreement, her failure to recognize the danger posed by the

2914offender’s presence at her home, and her continuing denial of the

2925severity of the conduct in this matter, are sufficient to deny

2936the application. A juvenile court sustained the removal of

2945children from the Petitioner’s home. Mr. Hodgest was not an

2955acceptable candidate for either employment at the home or a

2965suitor. The Petitioner’s failure to comprehend that simple fact

2974supports the Department’s actions in these cases.

2981RECOMMENDATION

2982Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

2992Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family

3003Services enter Final Orders that deny the renewal of the

3013Petitioner’s foster home license and deny the Petitioner’s

3021adoption application.

3023DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2007, in

3033Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3037S

3038___________________________________

3039J. D. Parrish

3042Administrative Law Judge

3045Division of Administrative Hearings

3049The DeSoto Building

30521230 Apalachee Parkway

3055Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3058(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3062Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3066www.doah.state.fl.us

3067Filed with the Clerk of the

3073Division of Administrative Hearings

3077this 9th day of February, 2007.

3083COPIES FURNISHED:

3085Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk

3089Department of Children and Family Services

3095Building 2, Room 204B

30991317 Winewood Boulevard

3102Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

3105John Copelan, General Counsel

3109Department of Children and Family Services

3115Building 8, Room 204

31191317 Winewood Boulevard

3122Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

3125Robert Butterworth, Secretary

3128Department of Children and Family Services

3134Building 1, Room 202

31381317 Winewood Boulevard

3141Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

3144Greer Davis Wallace, Esquire

3148Law Office of Greer Davis Wallace

31541450 North Krome Avenue, Suite 101G

3160Florida City, Florida 33034-2400

3164Rosemarie Rinaldi, Esquire

3167Department of Children and Family Services

3173401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N-1014

3179Miami, Florida 33128

3182NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3188All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

3199days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

3210this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

3221issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2007
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2007
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/09/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/09/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held September 7, 2006). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 02/09/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2007
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2007
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders (proposed reommended orders shall be filed by January 19, 2007).
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Ex-parte Communication.
PDF:
Date: 01/18/2007
Proceedings: Letter from H. Mcintyre to Judge Parrish regarding outcome of case filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/03/2007
Proceedings: Agreed Motion for Additional Time to Submit Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/26/2006
Proceedings: Transcript (2 volumes) filed with exhibits; exhibits not available for viewing.
PDF:
Date: 12/26/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Filing filed.
Date: 09/07/2006
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2006
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for September 7, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to Video and Locations of Hearing).
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2006
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for September 7, 2006, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/21/2006
Proceedings: Agreed Status Report and Dates of Availability for Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2006
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by July 21, 2006).
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Filing (Respondent`s Exhibits 1-6) filed (Hearing exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2006
Proceedings: Motion to Allow Respondent`s Witness to Appear by Telephone filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2006
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for July 11, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to Video and Location of Hearing).
PDF:
Date: 07/05/2006
Proceedings: Respondent`s Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 11, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2006
Proceedings: Agreed Status Report and Dates of Availability for Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2006
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by May 26, 2006).
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2006
Proceedings: Second Agreed Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2006
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 16, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Agreed Dates of Availability for Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2006
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by April 10, 2006).
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2006
Proceedings: Agreed Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2006
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing scheduled for April 3, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to the Consolidation of Cases).
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2006
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (Case Nos. 06-0347 and 06-0537).
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2006
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2006
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2006
Proceedings: Request for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2006
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Deny Adoption Application filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2006
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.

Case Information

Judge:
J. D. PARRISH
Date Filed:
02/10/2006
Date Assignment:
02/28/2006
Last Docket Entry:
05/22/2007
Location:
Miami, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):