06-003433 Department Of Children And Family Services vs. Delores Wilson Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, February 23, 2007.

Summary: Respondent failed to notify Petitioner of the changes in the composition of her family. Based on this conduct, Respondent`s foster care license should be revoked.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILY SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 06 - 3433

)

DELORES WILSON, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held on December 6,

2006, before Carolyn S. Holifield, an Administrative Law Judge

of the Division of Administrative Hearings, by video

teleconferencing at sites in Tallahassee and Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For P etitioner: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

Regional Headquarters

9393 N orth Florida Avenue, Suite 902

Tampa, Florida 33612

For Respondent: Joseph J . Registrato, Esquire

2067 North 15th Street

Tampa, Florida 33605

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent , Delores Wilson, committed the acts

alleged in the Administrative Complaint , and, if so, whether her

foster ca re license should be revoked.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about July 13, 2006, Petitioner , Department of

Children and Family Services (Department), issued an

Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Delores Wilson

(Respondent), which advised her that the Department intended to

revoke her foster care license. According to the Administrative

Compliant, the following statutory and rule violations were the

grounds for the proposed actions: (1) Respondent committed an

intentional or negligent act that ma terially affected the health

or safety of children in the home as proscribed in Subsection

409.175(9)(b)1, Florida Statute s (2006) 1/ ; (2) Respondent failed

to provide sufficient information for the Department to verify

her compliance with all rules and reg ulations in violation of

Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C - 13.010(4)(b);

(3) Respondent failed to communicate effectively in violation of

Florida Administrative Rule 65C - 13.009(1)(e)2.; and

(4) Respondent failed to demonstrate the ability to work with

t he Department in violation of Florida Administrative Code

Rule 65C - 13.009(3)(a)13. Finally, the Administrative Complaint

charges that the foregoing alleged statutory and rule violations

constitute a basis for revocation under Subsection

409.175(9)(b)2., F lorida Statutes.

Respondent challenged the allegations in the Administrative

Complaint and requested a formal hearing. On or about

September 19, 2006, the Department forwarded the matter to the

Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an

Admi nistrative Law Judge to conduct the f inal hearing. The case

was set for hearing and conducted as noted above.

At the outset of the f inal hearing, the Department made an

ore tenus motion to amend the Administrative Complaint by

deleting paragraph (3)(e) a nd changing the date in the third

sentence in paragraph (3)(b) from December 1, 2006, to

December 19, 2005. That unopposed motion was granted , and the

Administrative Complaint is deemed amended in accordance with

the Department's motion.

At hearing, the Department presented the testimony of eight

witnesses and had ten exhibits admitted into evidence.

Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the

testimony of two witnesses. Respondent did not offer any

exhibits into evidence.

The proceeding w as recorded , but the t ranscript was not

ordered. Both parties timely filed P roposed R ecommended O rders

which have been considered in preparation of this Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent was first licensed as a foster parent in

Florida , in or about 2003, after she applied for and was granted

a foster care license through Camelot Community Care, Inc.

(Camelot), a foster parent licensing agency located in Tampa,

Florida.

2. Prior to receiving a foster care license through

Camelot, Respo ndent signed a Letter of Agreement with Camelot.

Pursuant to the terms of the Letter of Agreement, Respondent

agreed to comply with Camelot 's policies. Additionally, the

letter advised Respondent that if she violated the policies,

foster children would b e removed from her home , and the

Department would make decisions regarding the revocation of her

license.

3. After Respondent was licensed, two foster children, T.

and D., were placed in her home. T., a girl, was placed in

Respondent's home in November 2 003 , and D., a boy, was placed

there in December 2003.

4. In November 2004, Camelot staff met with Respondent to

discuss the foster children who had been placed in her home. At

the time of this meeting, D. was 15 or 16 years old and T., who

was about 1 8 years old, was pregnant and due to deliver the baby

in a few months.

5. D. had a history of sexually acting out. Because of

D.'s history, Camelot's policy was that D. not be placed in a

home with younger children. In light of D.'s history and

Camelo t's policy related thereto, during the November 2004

meeting, Camelot staff told Respondent that when T.'s baby was

born, the baby could not live in the same house with D.

Therefore, Camelot staff advised Respondent that she would have

to choose whether s he wanted to continue to work with D. (have

D. remain in her home) or assist T. with her baby. Respondent

was also told to notify Camelot when the baby was born.

6. In December 2004, Respondent was informed that it was

likely that T.'s baby would be ado pted or put in foster care

upon birth due to T.'s extensive disabilities. Respondent had

also been told that the baby would not be given to the mother

while she was in the hospital.

7. On January 29 or 30, 2005, T., who was then 19 years

old, gave birth to her baby at a hospital. It is unknown what

happened at the hospital to alter the proposed adoption or

foster care plan for the baby. However, while T. was in the

hospital, the baby was given to her.

8. On or about February 1, 2005, T. and the baby l eft the

hospital. Both T. and her baby then went to Respondent's home

and lived with her. The reason Respondent allowed T. and the

baby to stay with her was because she wanted to help T.

9. Despite regular communications with Camelot staff

during the t ime period after the baby was born, Respondent never

told anyone associated with Camelot or the Department that T.

had given birth to the baby. Camelot found out about the birth

of the baby only after being notified "indirectly" by another

waiver support coordinator.

10. D's initial placement with Respondent remained

unchanged until February 7, 2005, when Camelot first received

reports that T.'s baby was living with Respondent. On that day,

Camelot removed D. from Respondent's home.

11. On February 16 , 2005, Camelot staff, D.'s waiver

support coordinator, a Hillsborough Kids, Inc. , case manager,

and Respondent met to discuss the situation which resulted in

D.'s being removed from Respondent's home on February 7, 2005.

At this meeting, the subjects of the November 2004 and December

2004 meetings described in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 above, were

also reviewed and discussed.

12. A summary of the February 16, 2005, meeting was

reported in a letter dated February 28, 2005, written by

Camelot's clinical direct or, who attended that meeting. A copy

of the letter was furnished to several persons who attended the

meeting, including Respondent. The letter expressly stated that

anyone who had further comments or concerns should contact the

clinical director. Respo ndent never contacted the clinical

director or anyone at Camelot regarding the contents of the

February 28, 2005, letter.

13. The discussion at the February 16, 2005, meeting

focused on D. and the circumstances surrounding his removal from

Respondent's ho me. Camelot staff specifically discussed

Respondent's decision to allow T. and T.'s baby to live with

Respondent, after being told that this should not happen and her

failure to notify Camelot that the baby had been born and was in

her home. During this meeting, Respondent never denied the

foregoing facts. Rather, Respondent explained that she allowed

T. and her baby to stay with her was so that she (Respondent)

could help T.

14. As a result of Respondent 's failure to disclose to

Camelot staff tha t T. had given birth to the baby and that both

T. and the baby were living with Respondent, Camelot placed

Respondent's foster home license on inactive status in or about

late February 2005. Camelot advised Respondent of this decision

at the February 16, 2005, meeting.

15. In addition to placing Respondent's license on

inactive status, Camelot also recommended that Respondent not be

re - licensed as a foster parent. Respondent's foster care

license was set to expire on July 31, 2005.

16. After Respondent 's foster care license issued by

Camelot expired, she applied to Florida Mentor, another foster

care licensing agency, for licensure as a foster parent.

17. Florida Mentor reviewed Respondent's application for

foster care licensure. As part of its review , Florida Mentor

conducted a home study, the results of which were summarized in

a report titled, "Annual Re - Licensing Home Study - 2005" (Home

Study Report or Report), which was completed on or about

October 27, 2005.

18. During the review process, Florida Mentor learned that

Respondent had been previously licensed by Camelot and that the

license had been placed on inactive status and allowed to

expire. Based on information obtained from the Department's

licensure file on Respondent and/or information provi ded by

Respondent, Florida Mentor also learned about the circumstances

discussed in paragraph 13 , that caused Camelot to remove a

foster child from Respondent's home and to place her foster care

license on inactive status.

19. Florida Mentor staff met wit h Respondent and discussed

the situation involving D., T., and T.'s baby that occurred when

she was licensed by Camelot. Respondent did not deny that she

had violated Camelot's policy and had brought T. and T's baby to

her home when D. was still there. I nstead, Respondent

acknowledged that she realized that her decision to bring T.'s

baby home resulted in her clients being removed from her home

and Camelot's decision to place her license on inactive status.

20. Notwithstanding Respondent's admitting tha t she had

failed to adhere to Camelot's policy regarding allowing T.'s

baby in her home when D. was still there, she expressed to the

Florida Mentor staff her desire to continue to work as a foster

parent.

21. Florida Mentor staff acknowledged Respondent's desire

to serve as a foster parent. However, in light of her failure

to comply with Camelot's policies and procedures, Florida Mentor

staff discussed with Respondent the importance of communication

and honesty with the foster care agency and the adherenc e to the

policies and decisions of the agency.

22. Florida Mentor considered several factors in its

review of Respondent's application for a foster care license.

These factors included Respondent's prior foster care experience

with Camelot, including her admission that her violation of

Camelot's policy was the reason her license was placed on

inactive status ; Respondent's statement of her desire to be a

foster parent ; and her apparent understanding that it was

important that she comply with the policies of the foster care

agency.

23. Based on it s review of the application and the

findings and conclusions in the home study report, Florida

Mentor recommended that Respondent be re - licensed as a

therapeutic foster parent.

24. Based on Florida Mentor's recomme ndation, Respondent

was granted a new foster parent license, which was effective on

November 1, 2005. It is that license which is at issue in this

proceeding.

25. Prior to issuance of Respondent's November 1, 2005,

foster care license, Respondent was req uired to sign a Bilateral

Service Agreement (Bilateral Agreement). That Bilateral

Agreement set forth the terms and conditions with which all

affected parties, the Department, the foster care agency, and

Respondent must comply. The Bilateral Agreement wa s executed by

Respondent and by a Florida Mentor staff person, on behalf of

the Department, on October 4, 2005.

26. Pursuant to the Bilateral Agreement, Respondent agreed

to "notify the Department immediately of a potential change

in . . . living arrangeme nts or family composition (who is in

the home), employment, significant health changes o r any other

condition that may affect the child's well being."

27. In November 2005, after Respondent received her new

foster care license, foster children were placed in Respondent's

home. One child, M.J., was placed with Respondent on

November 15, 2005. Two other children, S.C. and M.C., who were

brothers, were place with Respondent on December 19, 2005.

28. On January 8, 2006, M.J., S.C., and M.C., the three

foste r children who had been placed with Respondent in November

and December 2005, were still living in Respondent's home.

29. On January 8, 2006, a child protective investigator

with the Department conducted a home study of Respondent's home.

The purpose of the home study was to determine whether

Respondent's home was a safe placement for her two

grandchildren, and, if so, should the grandchildren be placed

with Respondent. A placement for the two children was necessary

because they had been taken from their mother, Respondent's

daughter, for alleged abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

30. The child protective investigator completed the home

study on January 8, 2006, and reported the information she

obtained during the home study on a seven - page Department f orm

titled, "Caregiver Home Study." The completed Caregiver Home

Study document was signed by Respondent and her son - in - law,

Richard Davis, on January 8, 2006.

31. Two categories included on the Caregiver Home Study

form required Respondent to provide inf ormation regarding

members of her household. One of the categories on the form

required Respondent to provide the names of adults living or

frequently in the prospective caregiver's home. The other

category required that Respondent also list or provide t he

names, sex, and ages of children living in her home.

32. On the Caregiver Home Study form, Richard Davis,

Respondent's son - in - law, was listed as an adult who lived in or

was frequently in Respondent's home.

33. Based on information Respondent provided to the child

protective investigator on January 8, 2006, the child protective

investigator recorded on the Caregiver Home Study form that

there were two foster children living in Respondent's home, A.C.

and his brother, M.C.

34. On January 8, 2006, in add ition to A.C. and M.C.,

there was a third foster child, M.J., also living with

Respondent. However, although there were three foster children

living with Respondent on January 8, 2006, she never told the

child protective investigator that M.J. was living in her home.

Therefore, M.J. was not listed on the Caregiver Home Study form

as a child l i ving in Respondent 's home.

35. The Caregiver Home Study form required that Mr. Davis,

the other adult living or frequently in the prospective

caregiver's home, and R espondent sign the completed form. Both

Respondent and Mr. Davis signed the Caregiver Home Study form on

January 8, 2006. By signing the form, both Respondent and

Mr. Davis acknowledged that to the best of their knowledge, "I

have given the Department tr uthful information on all questions

asked of me."

36. On March 14, 2006, the assigned caseworker for A.C.

and his brother M.C., two of the three foster children in

Respondent's home, made an unannounced home visit to

Respondent's home to check on those two children. During this

visit, the case worker observed A.C. and M.C. , as well as two

other children there. The other two children the caseworker

observed were Respondent's grandchildren who had been placed in

Respondent's home after the Caregiver Home Study was completed

on January 8, 2006.

37. Respondent's two grandchildren had been placed with

her since January 200 6 and were still living with her on

March 14, 2006. However, during the case worker's unannounced

visit on March 14, 2006, Respondent tol d the caseworker that the

two grandchildren did not live with her, but that she was

babysitting them until their mother got off from work.

38. After the March 14, 2006, visit to Respondent's home,

the caseworker searched HomeSafe Net to determine the stat us of

Respondent's grandchildren. That search revealed that the

grandchildren were actually sheltered and living with

Respondent.

39. The caseworker also contacted an employee of the Safe

Children Coalition, an agency which has a contract with the

Departm ent, to obtain information regarding the status of

Respondent's grandchildren. An employee with Safe Children

Coalition confirmed that the Sheriff's Office had placed

Respondent's grandchildren with Respondent on January 8, 2006,

and that, as of March 14, 2006, Respondent's grandchildren were

still living with her.

40. At the time of the March 14, 2006, 30 - day visit, and

at no time prior thereto, Florida Mentor was unaware that

Respondent's grandchildren were living with Respondent.

41. Respondent never no tified Florida Mentor or the

Department that her grandchildren had been placed with her and

were living in her home. By failing to notify the Department or

Florida Mentor of the change in the family composition, the

people living in the home, Respondent v iolated the terms of the

Bilateral Agreement.

42. In order to provide for the safety and health of all

the children placed in Respondent's care, it is imperative that

the agency placing the foster children be immediately advised of

any potential or actual change in the family composition, those

living in the home.

43. Since being licensed as a foster parent in Florida,

Respondent repeatedly disregarded her obligation to advise the

foster care agency of important and required changes. In three

instances, Re spondent failed to inform the appropriate agency of

the changes in the composition of persons living in her home.

The second and third incidents occurred after and while

Respondent was licensed by Florida Mentor, after she had been

specifically advised of the importance and need to communicate

and be honest with the foster care agency and to adhere to the

agency's policies.

44. First, Respondent failed to advise Camelot staff when

T.'s baby was born , and Respondent allowed T. to bring her

newborn baby to R espondent's home to live. Respondent ignored

or disregarded the directive of Camelot staff, who had told her

that T.'s baby could not live in Respondent's home because of

the sexual history of D., a foster child placed in Respondent's

home.

45. Respondent testified that D. was not in her home on

February 1, 2005, when T.'s newborn baby was brought home,

because Camelot had placed D. in respite care. According to

Respondent, D. returned for one day, before he was permanently

removed from her home and place d in another foster home.

46. Respondent's testimony, discussed in paragraph 45

above, is not credible and is contrary to the competent evidence

which established that D. was removed from Respondent's home on

February 7, 2005, and then p laced in another ho me. Even if D.

were not physically in Respondent's house when T.'s baby was

there, because D. was still a foster child placed in

Respondent's home, she was responsible for notifying the

Department of the change in the composition of her household.

Howeve r, Respondent failed to notify Camelot or the Department

and, in doing so, violated a Department rule and a specific

directive of the foster care agency.

47. In the second incident, Respondent failed to disclose

to the child protective investigator that s he had three foster

children. Respondent testified that she was not untruthful to

the child protective investigator about the number of foster

children who were living in her home. According to Respondent,

she never said how many foster children lived in her home.

Instead, Respondent testified that the child protective

investigator made that presum ption after she (the investigator)

saw two "yellow jackets" (files about the foster children) on a

table in Respondent's house.

48. Respondent's testimony, dis cussed in paragraph 4 7 , is

not credible and ignores the fact that Respondent signed the

Caregiver Home Study form indicating that she had only two

foster children living in the home. Moreover, having served as

a foster parent for about ten years and in tw o states,

Respondent knew the importance and significance of providing

accurate information regarding the composition of the family and

how that information might impact additional placements (i.e. ,

the placement of her grandchildren) in Respondent's home.

49. In the third instance, while licensed by Florida

Mentor, Respondent failed to notify that agency or the

Department of a change in the family composition (i.e. , who is

in the home) that occurred on January 8, 2006, when Respondent's

two grandchildren were placed in her home. The agency first

learned that Respondent's grandchildren lived with her only

after a case worker made an unannounced visit to Respondent's

home on March 14, 2006, and saw Respondent's grandchildren

there, and later verified that t he grandchildren were living

with Respondent.

50. Respondent does not deny that she failed to notify the

Department that her grandchildren were living with her.

However, Respondent testified that she never told the case

worker that her grandchildren did n ot live with her and that she

was babysitting them while their mother worked. This testimony

by Respondent is not credible and is contrary to the credible

testimony of the case worker and the supporting documentary

evidence.

51. Respondent was aware of t he policy that required her

to immediately notify the Department or foster care agency of a

potential change in family composition. In fact, Respondent

signed a Bilateral Agreement in which she agreed to provide such

notification to the Department or the Department's

representative. Nonetheless, on two occasions, after being

licensed by Florida Mentor and having foster children placed in

her home, Respondent failed to notify the Department of actual

changes in her family's composition.

52. Respondent deli berately violated the terms of the

Bilateral Agreement that required her to notify the Department

or the foster care agency of any potential , and certainly any

actual , changes in her family composition. This provision is

designed to better ensure the heal th and safety of the foster

children placed with foster parents, such as Respondent.

53. There is no indication that the children placed in

Respondent's home at the time relevant to this proceeding were

harmed or injured. Nonetheless, the harm which the D epartment's

policy is designed to prevent is not only possible, but more

likely to occur when the composition of the foster parent

changes and the Department is not notified of that change.

Without such knowledge, the Department lacks the information it

n eeds to make decisions regarding the placement and/or continued

placement of foster children in a particular foster home.

54. As a result of Respondent's failing to provide

information relative to her family composition, she also failed

to provide informat ion necessary and required to verify her

compliance with the Department's rules and regulations.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

55. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant Section 12 0.569 and Subsection 120.57(1),

Florida S t atutes.

56. Petitioner issued a license to Respondent as referred

to in Subsection 409.175(2)(f), Florida Statutes, which states:

"License" means "license" as defined in

s. 120.52 (9). A license under this sectio n

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 in the recipient. A license

under this act is a public trust and a

privil ege, 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.

57. Respondent's license relates to a "family foster home"

as defined in Subsect ion 409.175(2)(e), Florida Statutes, which

states:

"Family foster home" means a private

residence in which children who are

unattended by a parent or legal guardian are

provided 24 - hour care. Such homes include

emergency shelter family homes and

special ized foster homes for children with

special needs. A person who cares for a

child of a friend for a period not to exceed

90 days, a relative who cares for a child

and does not receive reimbursement for such

care from the state or federal government,

or an adoptive home which has been approved

by the department or by a licensed child -

placing agency for children placed for

adoption is not considered a family foster

home.

58. Respondent is the "operator" of the family foster

home. The term "operator" is def ined at Subsection

409.175(2)(g), Florida Statutes, which states:

"Operator" means any onsite person

ultimately responsible for the overall

operation of a child - placing agency, family

foster home, or residential child - caring

agency, whether or not she o r he is the

owner or administrator of such an agency or

home.

59. The Department is the agency charged with the

responsibility of licensing foster homes in the S tate of

Florida. § 409.175, Fla. Stat.

60. Respondent was re - licensed as a foster parent on

N ovember 1, 2005. On July 13, 2006, before her license expired,

the Department notified Respondent that it intended to revoke

her license on the grounds set forth in Subsection

409.175(9)(b)1. and 2., Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rules 65C - 13.009(1)(e)2.,

65C - 13.009(3)(a)13. , and 65C - 13.010(4)(b).

61. Subsection 409.175(9), Florida Statutes, reads , in

pertinent part , as follows:

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

or revoke a license.

(b) Any of the following actions by a

h ome or agency or its personnel is a ground

for denial, suspension, or revocation of a

license:

1. An intentional or negligent act

materially affect ing the health or safety of

children in the home or agency.

2. A violation of the provisions of thi s

section or of licensing rules promulgated

pursuant to this section.

62. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C - 13.009 addresses

the program prescribed and designed for the preparation and

selection of prospective foster parents.

63. Florida Administr ative Code Rule 65C - 13.009(1)(e)2.

provides , in pertinent part , the following:

(1) Philosophy and Rationale.

* * *

(e) The goal of the Group Preparation and

Selection Program is to prepare individuals

and families to make an informed decision

a bout becoming foster or adoptive families.

The decision is made with the department and

is based on the capability and willingness

to take on the "role" and develop the skills

needed to foster or adopt. . . . As

successful foster and adoptive parents, you

must be able to:

* * *

2. Communicate effectively. Use and

develop communication skills needed to

foster or adopt.

64. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C - 13.009(3)(a)13.

provides , in pertinent part , the following:

(3) Qualities to Discuss with Prospective

Substitute Care and Adoptive Families.

* * *

(a) Characteristics of substitute care and

adoptive parents:

* * *

13. Ability to work with the

department; . . . .

65. Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C - 13.010(4)(b )

reads , in pertinent part:

(4) Responsibilities of the Substitute

Care Parents to the Department.

* * *

(b) The substitute care parents are

required to participate with the department

in relicensing studies and in ongoing

monitoring o f their home, and must provide

sufficient information for the department to

verify compliance with all rules and

regulations.

66. The Department seeks the revocation of Respondent's

foster home license. Accordingly, as the party asserting the

affirmati ve of an issue before this tribunal, the Department has

the burden of proof. Florida Department of Transportation v.

J.W.C. Co mpany , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

67. In accordance with the definition of "license"

contained in Subsection 409.175(2 )(f), Florida Statutes, and

quoted above, the licensure status previously awarded to

Respondent is not a professional license and does not create a

property right. Therefore, the Department must establish facts

that support its position by a preponderance of the evidence ,

rather than by the clear and convincing standard normally

imposed in professional license cases. Dept. of Banking and

Finance v. Osborne, Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996) .

68. The Department established by a preponderance of t he

evidence that Respondent failed to provide sufficient

information to the Department to verify compliance with all

rules and regulations in violation of Florida Administrative

Code Rule 65C - 13.010(4)(b).

69. The Department established by a preponderance of the

evidence that Respondent failed to demonstrate the ability to

work with the Department in violation of Florida Administrative

Code 65C - 13.009(3)(a)13.

70. Respondent's violation of Florida Administrative Code

Rules 65C - 13.010(4)(b) and 65C - 13.009(3) (a)13. , constitute s

grounds for the Department to revoke her foster parent license,

pursuant to Subsection 409.175(9)(b)2., Florida Statutes.

71. The Department failed to prove that the findings of

facts established in this case constitute an intentional a ct

that materially affected the health or safety of children in her

home and is, thus, grounds for revocation pursuant to Subsection

409.175(9)(b)1., Florida Statutes.

72. The Department failed to prove that the findings of

fact constitute a violation of F lorida Administrative Code Rule

65C - 13.009(1)(e)2., which provides that a successful foster and

adoptive parent must be able to "communicate effectively."

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that Petitioner , Department of Children and

Family Services, enter a final order revoking Respondent ,

Delores Wilson 's , foster care license.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2007, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD

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 23rd day of February , 2007 .

ENDNOTE

1/ References to statutes are to Florida Statutes ( 2006 ) unless

otherwise noted.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

Regional Headquarters

9393 North Florida Avenue, Suite 902

Tampa, Florida 33612

Joseph J. Registrato, Esquire

2067 North 15th Street

Tampa, Florida 33605

Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk

Department of Children and

Family Services

Buil ding 2, Room 204B

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

John Copelan, General Counsel

Department of Children and

Family Services

Building 2, Room 204

1317 Winewood Boulevard

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.