02-003885 Department Of Children And Family Services vs. Marie Claire Azulphar Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, April 30, 2003.

Summary: Respondent committed one violation of Bilateral Service Agreement and rule providing minimum standards. After violation and before the revocation action began, Respondent showed she met minimum standards. Dismiss revocation.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILY SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 02 - 3885

)

MARIE CLAIRE AZULPHAR, )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was he ld in this case

on January 8, 2003, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Errol H.

Powell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Rosemarie Rinaldi, Esquire

Department of Ch ildren and

Family Services

401 Northwest Second Avenue

Suite N - 1014

Miami, Florida 33128

For Respondent: Marie Claire Azulphar, pro se

10325 Northwest 2nd Court

Miami, Florida 33150

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent's foster home license should be revoked.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated August 21, 2002, the Department of Children

and Family Services (Department) notified Marie Claire Azulphar

that it intended to revoke her foster home license for failure

to meet minimum standards provided in Rule 65C - 13, Florida

Administrative Code. Specifically, the Department alleged the

following to show that Ms. Azulphar failed to meet the minimum

standards set forth in the said Rule:

On September 24, 2001, an abuse report was

received alleging that a child in your

foster home, M. A., complained that she was

not comfortable with Louis Bryant, who

resides on your property. A criminal

background ch eck revealed that Mr. Bryant

had two charges of cocaine possession,

including a conviction on June 15, 2001.

On January 8, 2002, you met with the

licensing staff and agreed that in order to

keep your license, you would have your

tenant move out. It was c learly explained

to you by DCF [Department] licensing

personnel that according to Florida law,

Mr. Bryant could not reside in the foster

home since he has a disqualifying criminal

record and is not able to be around the

children. Additionally, you were to ld of

the importance of revealing all members of

your household so that their criminal

background can be checked.

At the end of May 2002, the Department

received a complaint from the juvenile court

that a 12 - year old foster child, F. D., was

not treated w ell while in your care. The

Guardian Ad Litem for the child verified

that during the two - week period from May 8th

to May 20th of 2002, F. D. was suspended

from school and allowed to remain home alone

all day.

The Guardian also revealed that during the

time that F. D. was in your home, she stayed

out all night and you were unconcerned.

When the child called at around 4:00 in the

morning and asked to return home, you

refused to pick her up and F. D. had to call

the Guardian Ad Litem for help.

Additional ly, the Licensing counselor made

an unannounced visit to your home at 8:00

P.M. on May 29, 2002. He found a 16 - year

old foster child home alone. He also

observed the car belonging to Mr. Bryant

parked in front of the house. When the

counselor returned a t 6:20 the next morning,

Mr. Bryant's car was parked in a different

position in front of the house. The

Licensing counselor knocked on the door and

an unidentified man answered and said that

you were not home. Furthermore, the

Department counselor for F. D. reported

seeing a strange man in the home when he

went out on May 22, 2002, to pick up the

child.

By letter dated September 10, 2002, Ms. Azulphar requested

a hearing on the Department's notice of intent to revoke her

license. On October 4, 2002, the matter was referred to the

Division of Administrative Hearings. A hearing was scheduled

but was continued and rescheduled at the request of the

Department.

At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of

four witnesses, one of whom was Ms. Azul phar, and entered two

exhibits (Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1 and 2) into evidence.

Ms. Azulphar testified in her own behalf, presented the

testimony of four witnesses, two of whom were her former foster

children, and entered ten exhibits (Respondent's Exhibits

numbered 1 - 10) into evidence.

A transcript of the hearing was ordered. At the parties'

request, the time for filing post - hearing submissions was set

for more than ten days following the filing of the transcript.

The Transcript, consisting of on e volume, was filed on

February 3, 2003. The Department timely filed its post - hearing

submission. Ms. Azulphar's post - hearing submission was not

timely filed, however, the Department did not object to its

untimely filing. Ms. Azulphar's post - hearing subm ission is

hereby accepted. The parties' post - hearing submissions were

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. There is no dispute that, at all times material hereto,

Ms. Azulphar had a foster home license issued by th e Department.

2. Ms. Azulphar became a foster parent in January 1999.

3. As with all new foster parents, Ms. Azulphar was

required to complete 30 hours of Model Approach to Partnership

Parenting (MAPP) training. Among other things, the MAPP

training inv olves discussions regarding duties and

responsibilities of a foster parent, the sexual problems of

foster care children, and what to do if a foster care child runs

away.

4. Ms. Azulphar and the Department entered into a

Bilateral Service Agreement regar ding foster care. Both of them

agreed to abide by the terms of the Bilateral Service Agreement.

5. The Bilateral Service Agreement provided, among other

things, the following:

The Department's responsibilities to the

foster parents include:

* * *

j . Support will be shown by responding

within 24 hours to telephone messages,

written correspondence or any other requests

the foster parents may have.

* * *

Commitment to the Child

The decision to accept a child into the home

is a major one. . . Mos t foster children

have experienced severe emotional, sexual

and/or physical abuse as well as trauma. It

is not unusual for children who have been

sexually abused to act out in sexual

inappropriate ways. Foster parents must be

aware that these children ne ed extra

monitoring, teaching and showing of

appropriate affection in order to grow into

healthy children. . . By accepting a child

into the home, the foster parent(s) agree to

the following responsibilities:

* * *

d. To ensure that the child has su pervision

appropriate to his/her age and developmental

level.

* * *

Foster parents have responsibilities and

duties to both the department [sic] and the

child. Responsibilities to the department

[sic] include:

* * *

k. To notify the Departmen t immediately if

a child runs away, is missing or does not

return home, even if the foster parent knows

where the child is.

* * *

s. To know where and with whom the child is

staying and the type of supervision the

child is receiving when foster pare nts

approve an outing or overnight activity. . .

Non - compliance with any of the above

provisions can result in termination of this

service agreement by either the foster

parents or the Department. Non - compliance

with any of the ab ove [sic] provisions may

also result in the department [sic] revoking

the home's license to provide foster care

pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida

Statutes. . . .

6. Any person living with a foster parent is subject to a

background check by the Department because such person wou ld

have contact with any foster child placed with the foster

parent. Such person must not have a disqualifying criminal

record 1 in order for the person to remain in the foster home

during the licensure of the foster home.

7. Ms. Azulphar had a tenant, L ouis Bryant, who lived in

an attached room to her home, which was converted from a garage.

He had his own private entrance to his room.

8. In January 2002, the Department informed Ms. Azulphar

that Mr. Bryant, not only had a criminal record, but also had a

disqualifying criminal drug record and that, therefore, if she

wanted to keep her license, he would have to move. Ms. Azulphar

informed Mr. Bryant that he had to move. Mr. Bryant moved, and

Ms. Azulphar provided documentation to the Department indicat ing

that he had moved.

9. Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as a long - time friend

and someone that she had relied upon when she first came to the

United States. Mr. Bryant was also Ms. Azulphar's former

supervisor. Further, even though he was a drug add ict, who was

skinny and dirty, smelled bad, and needed reminding to bathe,

Ms. Azulphar described Mr. Bryant as the only person upon whom

she could call when she had an emergency. She also indicated

that Mr. Bryant was a handy man who performed repairs fo r her.

10. Ms. Azulphar admitted that, as to Mr. Bryant, she was

a "co - partner." She further admitted that Mr. Bryant was

someone she "needs to continue what she was doing."

11. In spite of her reliance upon Mr. Bryant as indicated,

Ms. Azulphar showed a willingness to comply with the

Department's requirements by requiring Mr. Bryant to move.

12. On or about May 8, 2002, a foster child, F.D., 2 was

placed with Ms. Azulphar. F.D. was 12 years of age at the time.

F.D. was a special needs foster child bec ause she had a history

of being sexually abused at an early age and because F.D.'s

father was deceased and her mother had voluntarily surrendered

her parental rights.

13. F.D. was the subject of disciplinary action at school.

She was suspended for ten da ys from school for pulling a knife

on another student.

14. During the suspension, Ms. Azulphar took F.D. to work

with her. F.D. left Ms. Azulphar's workplace without

Ms. Azulphar's permission and knowledge. F.D. called her

friends who came to Ms. Azulph ar's workplace and F.D. left with

them.

15. Ms. Azulphar discovered that F.D. was dating a young

man who was much older than F.D. Ms. Azulphar believed that the

young man was approximately 26 years of age because he "looked"

26 years of age and F.D.'s fr iends were dating young men who

also looked 26 years of age. Ms. Azulphar believed that the

young man was among the friends that F.D. contacted to leave

Ms. Azulphar's workplace.

16. Also, during F.D.'s suspension, on the afternoon of

May 16, 2002, her G uardian Ad - Litem came to Ms. Azulphar's home

to visit F.D. The Guardian Ad - Litem knocked but no one

answered. F.D. emerged from a neighbor's house. Ms. Azulphar

had left F.D. alone at home. Ms. Azulphar had instructed F.D.

to wait for the Guardian Ad - L item at home and to not go outside

of the home.

17. Ms. Azulphar talked with the Guardian Ad - Litem on the

telephone that same day. She expressed to the Guardian Ad - Litem

that she wanted F.D. out of her home.

18. That evening on May 16, 2002, F.D. became so

distraught and volatile that she took a knife and threatened to

harm herself. Ms. Azulphar called the Department's emergency

telephone number and was told to call the Crisis Center for

Mobile Children (CCMC). Ms. Azulphar telephoned CCMC, which

told her how to talk to F.D. Ms. Azulphar did as she was

instructed and F.D. did not harm herself.

19. The next day, May 17, 2002, sometime in the evening

after bedtime, which was around 9 p.m., F.D. slipped out of

Ms. Azulphar's home. Ms. Azulphar had taken a sleeping pill and

was not aware that F.D. was gone.

20. Around 4 a.m. on May 18, 2002, Ms. Azulphar received a

telephone call from F.D., who wanted Ms. Azulphar to come and

get her. Ms. Azulphar did not want to drive at that time

because she had taken the sleeping pill, so Ms. Azulphar asked

F.D. to have an adult come to the telephone. Ms. Azulphar

believed that F.D. was at a party because of the background

noise that she heard, which sounded like a party. Ms. Azulphar

recognized that the person who came to the telephone was not an

adult, but Ms. Azulphar requested that F.D. be permitted to stay

at the person's home until 6 a.m. when she (Ms. Azulphar) would

pick - up F.D.

21. F.D. did not wait for Ms. Azulphar. She returned to

Ms. Azulphar's home bef ore Ms. Azulphar could get her.

22. Ms. Azulphar did not call the police when she

discovered that F.D. was leaving her (Ms. Azulphar's) workplace

with the young man who was 26 years of age and when she received

the telephone call from F.D. The reason tha t Ms. Azulplhar did

not call the police is that she believed that the police would

do more harm than good to F.D., that F.D. had had enough

trouble, and that F.D. was a Haitian as she was.

23. After F.D. returned to Ms. Azulphar's home on May 18,

2002, Ms . Azulphar contacted the Guardian Ad - Litem and requested

the removal of F.D. from her home. The Guardian Ad - Litem

reported the incident to the court and the court ordered an

investigation and the removal of F.D. from Ms. Azulphar's home.

The Guardian Ad - Litem did not know the results of the court's

investigation.

24. During the time that F.D. was in Ms. Azulphar's home,

Ms. Azulphar also had, in addition to her own child, T.A., two

other foster children, A.A. and her sister, V.A. 3 All of the

other child ren agree that F.D. could not be trusted, was a

thief, and did not tell the truth.

25. After F.D. was removed from her home, Ms. Azulphar had

another foster child placed in her home, who ran away. However,

this time, Ms. Azulphar contacted the police and the Department

when she discovered that the child had run away.

26. Sometime during the first two weeks that F.D. was

placed with Ms. Azulphar, 4 the Department's social worker for

F.D., Luis Muriel, was making arrangements with Ms. Azulphar to

pick - up F. D. Ms. Azulphar requested Mr. Muriel to come to her

workplace since F.D. would be there with her; however, he wanted

Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone. Ms. Azulphar reminded

him that she was not to leave F.D. at home alone. However,

Mr. Muriel in structed Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. at home alone

and informed Ms. Azulphar that he would be arriving at her home

in 30 minutes.

27. Ms. Azulphar contacted a male friend, who was

approximately 50 years of age, for assistance and requested that

he wait at her home for Mr. Muriel, who would be arriving in 30

minutes. However, she instructed her friend to wait outside in

his car, not in her home, and he agreed to do so. When

Mr. Muriel arrived at Ms. Azulphar's home and knocked on the

door, Ms. Azulphar's f riend opened the door. Ms. Azulphar's

friend had not complied with her instructions and had gone into

her home while F.D. was in the home.

28. The Department had not performed a background check on

Ms. Azulphar's friend. There was no reason for the De partment

to perform a background check on Ms. Azulphar's friend since it

was never intended by Ms. Azulphar that he would have contact

with the foster children placed with her. As to the incident,

Ms. Azulphar had made it clear to her friend that he was n ot to

go inside the home.

29. On May 29, 2002, around 8 p.m., the licensing

counselor for Ms. Azulphar's case, Reynaldo Gonzalez, made an

unannounced visit to her home after being contacted by F.D.'s

Guardian Ad - Litem regarding F.D.'s situation. By that time,

F.D. had been removed from Ms. Azulphar's home. Mr. Gonzalez

noticed a car parked outside of the house. He knocked on the

door. The foster child A.A., who was approximately 15 years of

age at the time, looked through the window and informed

Mr. Go nzalez that Ms. Azulphar was not at home. Mr. Gonzalez

returned around 8:30 p.m. and A.A. was still at home alone.

30. Ms. Azulphar had left A.A. at home alone. However,

Mr. Gonzalez's primary concern was not A.A.'s being at home

alone.

31. On the fol lowing day, around 6:20, 5 Mr. Gonzalez

returned to Ms. Azulphar's home because the Department had

received anonymous information that no food was in the home.

The same car was parked outside Ms. Azulphar's home, but the

front of the car was parked in a di fferent direction.

Ms. Azulphar was not at home, but a relative, who was there,

permitted Mr. Gonzalez to enter. Mr. Gonzalez found that there

was adequate food in the home. None of the foster children were

at home; they were with Ms. Azulphar.

32. Mr. Gonzalez's testimony failed to indicate whether

the car was parked along the street or in the driveway. An

inference is drawn that the car was parked along the street.

Ms. Azulphar voluntarily admitted to Mr. Gonzalez that

Mr. Bryant was the owner of th e car. She wanted Mr. Bryant to

park his car outside her home to make it look as if someone were

at home because her home had been burglarized when no one was at

home. Further, on one of the days referred to, Mr. Bryant's car

was either in disrepair or o ut of gas. 6

33. According to the Department, Mr. Bryant should not

have parked his car in front of Ms. Azulphar's home on the

street. However, the evidence fails to demonstrate that such

conduct by Mr. Bryant involved contact with the foster children.

3 4. Ms. Azulphar admits that, at times, Mr. Bryant

accompanied her shopping even when the foster children were with

her.

35. Ms. Azulphar also admits that Mr. Bryant has cut her

grass, but only when she was at home. Ms. Azulphar testified

that she obtain ed the approval of the Department for cutting the

grass even though no Department witness recalled approving the

action. Ms. Azulphar's testimony is found to be credible.

36. Ms. Azulphar used poor judgment as it relates to

Mr. Bryant. At first, Ms. Azu lphar believed that, even though

Mr. Bryant could not continue to be a tenant, she could continue

to have Mr. Bryant to assist her with some things. She now

knows that, as long as she has foster children, the Department

does not want him to be around the children at any time.

37. Ms. Azulphar believed that nothing was wrong with

Mr. Bryant parking or leaving his car at her house. Now, she

knows that the Department does not want him to be near her home

when she has foster children.

38. A.A. and V.A. were removed from Ms. Azulphar's home

when the Department decided to revoke her foster home license.

Both A.A. and V.A. want to return to Ms. Azulphar's home.

Ms. Azulphar's daughter is in complete agreement with her mother

being a foster parent and wants A. A. and V.A. to return.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

39. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the

parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection

120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

40. Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, provides in

pertinent part:

(1)(a) The purpose of this section is to

protect the health, safety, and well - being

of all children in the state who are cared

for by family foster homes, residential

child - caring agencies, and child - placing

agencies by providing for the establishment

of licensing requirements for such homes and

agencies and providing procedures to

determine adherence to these requirements.

* * *

(2) As used in this section, the term:

* * *

(f) "License" means "license" as defined in

s. 120.52(9). A license under this section

is issued to a family foster home or other

facility and is not a professional license

of any individual. Receipt of a license

under this section shall not create a

property right i n the recipient. A license

under this act is a public trust and a

privilege, and is not an entitlement. This

privilege must guide the finder of fact or

trier of law at any administrative

proceeding or court action initiated by the

department.

41. Licen se revocation proceedings are penal in nature.

The burden of proof is on the Department to establish by clear

and convincing evidence that Ms. Azulphar failed to meet minimum

standards for a foster home license as set forth in Rule 65C - 13,

Florida Adminis trative Code. Department of Banking and Finance,

Division of Securities and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern

and Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington ,

510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987). The Department misinterprets

Osborne Stern , supra. Florida's Supreme Court made it clear

that the clear and convincing standard would not be applicable

to license application proceedings -- "While we take this

opportunity to reaffirm our decision in Ferris , we decline to

extend the clear and convincing evi dence standard to license

application proceedings." Osborne Stern , 670 So. 2d at 934.

The case at hand is not a license application proceeding. The

Department has granted a license to Ms. Azulphar and now it

seeks to take that license away from her. Th e clear and

convincing standard is applicable to the case at hand.

42. Rule 65C - 13.010, Florida Administrative Code, provides

in pertinent part:

(1) Responsibilities of the Substitute

Parent to the Child.

(a) General.

1. To give love, acceptance, and c are to a

child without expecting a demonstration of

appreciation from the child.

2. To provide the child with opportunities

for normal growth and development.

3. To make a commitment to keep the child

for a planned period of time.

4. To assist in prepa ring the child for

return to the parents or permanent

placement.

(b) Family Care Activities.

1. Daily living tasks.

a. The substitute care parents are expected

to provide structure and daily activities

designed to promote the individual physical,

social , intellectual, spiritual, and

emotional development of the children in

their home.

* * *

6. Health Care.

* * *

d. The substitute care parents must

immediately report to the department any

serious changes in the health or mental

health of a c hild.

* * *

(4) Responsibilities of the Substitute Care

Parents to the Department.

(a) The substitute care parents are

required to participate in 30 hours of GPS -

MAPP training and at least eight hours of

in - service training annually which is

provid ed or approved by the department in

order to develop and enhance their skills.

* * *

(e) The substitute care parents must sign

an agreement to provide foster care for

dependent children for each child placed in

their home.

* * *

(k) The subst itute care parents shall

notify the department immediately, day or

night, if the following situations occur:

1. A child requires hospitalization or

emergency medical treatment;

2. A child dies;

3. A child has run away, is abducted, or is

absent from th e home beyond reasonable

expectations; and

4. Any other life - threatening situation

occurs.

(5) Responsibilities of the Department to

the Substitute Care Parents and Children.

(a) The department or private agency will

provide and coordinate training

opp ortunities for substitute care parents.

* * *

(d) If the child is being placed into

foster care, the child resource record must

be provided to the substitute family within

five days and contain the following items:

* * *

13. The names and pho ne numbers of staff to

be contacted in emergencies;

14. A copy of the performance agreement or

permanent placement plan if it is completed.

(e) The department must involve the

substitute care parents, as team members, in

all major decisions for children in their

care.

* * *

(h) The department must involve the

substitute care parents in the development

of the performance agreement, or permanent

placement plan, and the visitation contract

and will provide the parents with a copy.

* * *

(s) Th e counselor will review the child's

performance agreement or permanent placement

plan with the substitute care parents at

least quarterly, or more often as needed.

43. The evidence is clear that Ms. Azulphar used poor

judgment as it relates to Mr. Bry ant. She continued to have

Mr. Bryant to assist her with some things that involved contact

with the foster children. She now knows that, as long as she

has foster children, the Department does not want him to be

around the children at any time.

44. Also , Ms. Azulphar believed that nothing was wrong

with Mr. Bryant's parking or leaving his car in the front of her

house on the street. The evidence fails to demonstrate that

such conduct involved contact with the foster children.

However, Ms. Azulphar now knows that the Department does not

want him to be near her home as long as she has foster children

placed with her.

45. The undersigned is not persuaded that the evidence is

clear and convincing that Ms. Azulphar's judgment as to

Mr. Bryant reaches the le vel which would justify revocation of

her license. The Department provides training for its foster

parents, and the undersigned is persuaded that further training

of Ms. Azulphar can remedy the problem of her understanding as

to what type of contact is pe rmitted or not permitted and the

extent of the contact which is permitted, if any.

46. The evidence is not clear and convincing that

Ms. Azulphar used poor judgment in allowing her friend to wait

outside her home for the Department's social worker while F.D.

remained inside her home. No evidence was presented that

Ms. Azulphar had any prior indication that her friend would not

do as she requested or that he had been in contact with the

foster children prior to the incident. Further, the evidence

fails t o show that a background check of Ms. Azulphar's friend

was required in that the evidence fails to show that he had or

would have any contact with the foster children.

47. The evidence is not clear and convincing that

Ms. Azulphar violated the Bilateral Agreement or Rule 65C -

13.010, Florida Administrative Code, when she left F.D. and A.A.

at home alone. The Department's own employee, F.D.'s social

worker, instructed Ms. Azulphar to leave F.D. alone at home.

The undersigned is not persuaded that leaving F.D. alone at home

for 30 minutes is a violation. Taking into consideration the

instructions of the Department's social worker, the undersigned

is persuaded that, in the viewpoint of the social worker,

leaving F.D. at home alone was appropriate supervisio n for her

age and development in accordance with the Bilateral Agreement.

Applying this same analogy to A.A., the undersigned reaches the

same conclusion as to A.A.

48. The evidence is clear and convincing that Ms. Azulphar

violated the Bilateral Servic e Agreement and Rule 65C - 13.010,

Florida Administrative Code, by failing to immediately notify

the Department when she discovered that F.D. had left home after

bedtime without her (Ms. Azulphar's) knowledge. It is

understandable and reasonable that Ms. Az ulphar would not want

to drive after having taken a sleeping pill. However, with the

knowledge that F.D. had recently attempted to harm herself,

Ms. Azulphar should have immediately contacted the Department,

as she had done when F.D. attempted to harm he rself.

49. To the contrary, in a subsequent situation involving a

foster child in her care who had run away, Ms. Azulphar

immediately notified the police and the Department. The

undersigned is persuaded that Ms. Azulphar had come to realize

that, when a foster child in her care runs away or is absent

from her home without her knowledge or beyond a reasonable hour,

she must contact the Department and the police, immediately.

This subsequent incident should be considered a factor in a

decision to revoke Ms . Azulphar's foster home license.

50. Consequently, even though Ms. Azulphar violated the

Bilateral Agreement and Rule 65C - 13.010, Florida Administrative

Code, in one instance, Ms. Azulphar demonstrated that she has

acquired more knowledge, regarding the care of foster children,

and rectified her situation and conduct. Moreover, the

rectification occurred during the time period that she continued

to have foster children in her care after the removal of F.D.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings o f Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family

Services enter a final order dismissing the revocation action of

the foster home license of Marie Claire Azulphar.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2003, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

_____________________________

ERROL H. POWELL

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative H earings

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 30th day of April, 2003.

ENDNOTES

1/ The Department performs a criminal background check on anyone

residing in a foster home. A disqualifying criminal record

means in essence that the person has a criminal background which

disqualifies him/her from having con tact with the foster

child(ren) placed in the foster home.

2/ F.D. did not testify at the hearing.

3/ At hearing, A.A. testified that she was 16 years of age and

V.A. testified that she was 14 years of age. No testimony was

provided regarding their da te of birth. The incident occurred

approximately eight months prior to the hearing, which indicates

that A.A. was approximately 15 years of age and V.A. was

approximately 13 years of age at the time of the incident.

4/ The time period is not clear from the testimony, which is

from Ms. Azulphar.

5/ In Mr. Gonzalez's testimony, he did not indicate whether it

was a.m. or p.m. although the final agency action letter

indicates a.m.

6/ Ms. Azulphar's testimony is not clear as to which day or the

condition of the vehicle.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Rosemarie Rinaldi, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

401 Northwest Second Avenue

Suite N - 1014

Miami, Florida 33128

Marie Claire Azulphar

10325 Northwest 2nd Court

Miami, Florida 33150

Paul Flounla cker, Agency Clerk

Department of Children and

Family Sevices

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Building 2, Room 204B

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

Josie Tomayo, General Counsel

Department of Children and

Family Sevices

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Building 2, R oom 204

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

Jerry Regier, Secretary

Department of Children and

Family Sevices

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Building 2, Room 202

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions

to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.