07-003672 Department Of Children And Family Services vs. Adoption Center Of Florida, Inc., And Susan Morgan Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, November 29, 2007.

Summary: Recommend that Petitioner uphold its revocation of Respondent`s child-placing license.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILY SERVICES , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Cas e No. 07 - 3672

)

ADOPTION CENTER OF FLORIDA, )

INC., AND SUSAN MORGAN , )

)

Respondents . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this

case on October 24 and 25, 2007, in Tampa, Florida, before

Administrative Law Judge R. Bruce McKibben of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire

Jennifer Lima - Smith, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

Regional Headquarters

9393 North Florida Avenue, Suite 902

Tampa, Florida 33612

For Respondents: Clay W. Oberhausen, Esquire

2424 West Tampa Boulevard, D - 103

Tampa, Florida 33607

STATEMENT OF T HE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondent s ' child -

placing agency license should be revoked.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Department of Children and Family Services ("DCF" or

the "Department") issued an Administrative Complaint on July 10,

2007, se eking to revoke the child - placing agency license of the

Adoption Center of Florida, Inc. (the "Center") , and its owner,

Susan Morgan ("Morgan") (jointly referred to herein as

"Respondent"). Respondent filed an Answer to the Administrative

Complaint, reque sting a formal administrative hearing. The

matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings

and assigned to the undersign ed A dministrative L aw J udge.

At the final hearing, t he Department called the following

witnesses: Barry Plesch, Brad F orber, Jennifer Moody, and

Angela Ferguson, all clients or former clients of Respondent.

The Department also called: Freddie Brinson from Camelot

Community Care; Judy Wichteman, v ice p resident for Program

Administration for Hillsborough Kids, Inc. ("HKI" ); Armand

Grassi, c ontract m anager for HKI; Melissa Leggett, licensing

specialist with DCF; and Kris Emden, r egional l icensing m anager

for DCF. The Department offered 12 exhibits into evidence;

E xhibits 1 and 4 through 12 were admitted. Official recognit ion

was taken of E xhibits 2 and 3.

Respondent called three witnesses: Stacey Moore, d irector

of Licensed Care for HKI; Katrina Oliver, t raditional f oster

c are c oordinator for HKI; and Susan Morgan. Respondent offered

nine exhibits into evidence; E xhibits 4 through 9 were admitted ,

and official recognition was taken of E xhibits 1 through 3. The

parties asked that the record be kept open in this case until

November 15 , 2007, so that the deposition of a subpoenaed

witness could be taken. The witness, April LaClair, had been

subpoenaed twice for deposition and once for attendance at final

hearing, but did not appear. The Department did succeed in

taking LaClair's deposition on November 5, 2007, but

Respondent's counsel did not attend the deposition. It app ears

Respondent was given ample notice and opportunity to attend.

The deposition T ranscript of the LaClair deposition was filed

with the Division of Administrative Hearings and is accep ted as

evidence in this matter.

The parties indicated that no transcri pt of the proceeding

would be ordered. The parties were directed to submit proposed

recommended orders on or before November 15, 2007. Each party

timely submitted a P roposed R ecommended O rder , and each was

duly - considered in the prepara tion of this Recom mended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department is the state agency responsible for

licensing and monitoring child - placing agencies.

2. The Center, whose address is 1602 East Third Avenue,

Tampa, Florida , received its initial child - placing agency

licens e from DCF in 2004. The license was renewed October 12,

20 06. Susan Morgan has been the d irector of the Center since

its inception.

3. DCF contracts with HKI to provide community - based child

welfare services in Hillsborough County. HKI contracts with

C amelot Community Care for the performance of adoption related

services.

4. DCF received complaints about Respondent and issued an

Administrative Complaint with the following categories of

violations:

a. A foster parent home study was finalized

after only one home visit lasting half an

hour. The home study document indicates

four home consultations for that client.

b. Files relating to clients were left in

an unsecured environment at the Center with

unauthorized persons having access to them.

c. An ad optive home study was completed

without a visit being made to the

prospective adoptive parents' home.

d. Respondent lost or misplaced paperwork

from clients which contained confidential

information.

e. Respondent failed to timely provide

foster parents with a copy of their foster

parent licenses once the licenses were

issued.

5. Regarding the first violation, two home studies are

required to finalize a foster parent home study. The subject

family was provided a template for filling in information abo ut

their home. This is a reasonable means of gathering information

about a family. The family was directed to fill in the template

using the third person format (so that anyone reading the

document might infer that someone other than the family had

writt en the information). Morgan did not visit the home at

issue, but did send her associate (Wendy Martinez) who conducted

a brief 30 to 40 - minute visit. The home study was signed by

Morgan and dated March 13, 2007, some four or five weeks prior

to Martinez' s visit. The home study included the following

table concerning visits and consultations:

Contact Information

Inquiry Date 01/05/06

Inquiry Home Visit 02/10/06

Initial Home Consultation 03/15/06

MAPP Graduation 02/26/06

2nd Home Consultation 04/02/ 06

Final Home Consultation 03/08/07

Date Application Signed 03/08/07

6. The table seems to indicate a single home visit on

February 10, 2006, and three home "consultations" on later

dates. Morgan says the date of the home visit is a

typographical err or; it should say April 18, 2006 , i.e. , the

date of Martinez' s visit. Morgan admits only one home visit was

made, but says the home study was not final. Her testimony on

that topic is not credible. The home study appears complete,

has references to seve ral home visits and/or consultations, and

is signed by Morgan subsequent to the dates appearing in the

aforementioned table.

7. DCF considers the references to home consultations to

be tantamount to home visits. Inasmuch as at least two home

visits are r equired for a foster parent home study, this

interpretation makes sense. 1 A discussion of the differences, if

any, between home visits and home studies follows.

8. T here was much testimony at the final hearing as to

whether a home visit and a home study are the same thing. Each

of the experienced social workers and managers who testified

(other than Morgan) seemed to believe the two were synonymous.

Even the two witnesses called by Respondent to address the issue

opined that home visit and home consulta tion mean essentially

the same thing. Respondent introduced definitions from The

Social Worker's Dictionary , but there is nothing in those

definitions to suggest they apply to foster care or adoption

situations. None of the social workers who testified i ndicated

they would rely on that source to define home visits versus

consultations.

9. T he home study at issue appears to suggest that four

home visits/consultations were conducted , when in fact only one

(of the required two) was done.

10. The second cat egory of rule violation concerns

unsecured client records. Files belonging to clients of child -

placing agencies are extremely confidential in nature.

Respondent moved into a new office in the Ybor City section of

Tampa during September 2006. The office was shared with a

company that specializes in estimating construction project

costs. The estimating c ompany had two employees, a receptionist

and the owner of the company. The office was set up so that the

receptionist was in the same room as Respondent 's employee,

Martinez. Morgan had a separate office for herself , and the

owner of the estimating company had an office upstairs. The

Ybor City office had b een inspected by DCF in October 2006 and

was found to be sufficient for its intended purposes.

11. A client, Angela Ferguson, visited the Center in early

April 2007. Morgan was not present when Ferguson arrived, but

Martinez was there, as were employees from the other business.

Martinez called Morgan on the client's behalf so that Morgan

could come t o the office. While waiting for Morgan, the client

noticed 50 to 60 file folders lying around the office. Some of

the files belonged to other clients whose names were visible to

Ferguson. Some of the files were probably forms and other non -

confidential documents. The client files were not locked in a

cabinet or otherwise protected from persons using Respondent's

office.

12. On or about May 2 , 2007, another client, Jennifer

Moody , also visited the Center to get her file (so that she

could transfer to an other adoption agency). She walked into the

office and found the estimating company's receptionist, but no

one from the Center was there. The receptionist called Morgan

because Moody wanted to wait for her to arrive. While waiting,

Moody observed files lying around the office in plain view.

13. When Ferguson expressed her concerns to DCF about the

way files were being handled, a licensing specialist was sent

out to investigate. DCF employee Melissa Leggett made an

unannounced visit to the Center on May 16, 2007 , at 10:00 in the

morning. Martinez was in the office when Leggett arrived;

Martinez called Morgan for Leggett, and Morgan arrived shortly

thereafter. Leggett noticed confidential files lying around the

office, including files for some clients w ho she personally

knew. Leggett advised Morgan that the files would have to be

protected by placing them in a locked file cabinet or locked

room. Morgan agreed to remedy the situation and seems to have

done so by the date of the final hearing. Files are now being

protected from public scrutiny. Each employee of the estimating

company has signed a Confidentiality Office Policy agreeing to

keep all records of the Center confidential.

14. The third category of violation concerned an adoptive

home study fo r Moody (the same client who had visited the

Center). The home study for this family was also sent in blank

template form with instructions to fill it out using the third

person. Moody filled out the form and sent it back to Morgan.

In April 2006, Moody and her husband were scheduled to attend a

meeting with prospective adoptee children at Splitsville, a

Tampa bowling alley. In order to attend such meetings,

prospective adoptive parents must have a home study completed in

advance. This serves the purpo se of making sure that such

parents actually qualify as adoptive parents before they are

exposed to the children.

15. The home study for Moody and her husband was finished

by Morgan in time for the Moodys to attend the Splitsville

function. Although seve ral home visits were scheduled, each of

them was cancelled due to various circumstances. No home visit

was ever made. However, the home study was completed and signed

by Morgan with a recommendation that the family be approved to

adopt. The recommendati on section of the home study included as

its basis: "Based on MAPP training, personal interviews, home

consultations . . ." . The home study contains a thorough

description of the home, including the pool and yard, presumably

based on details provided by the Moodys.

16. Moody decided to terminate her relationship with

Morgan and the Center after not hearing from Morgan during the

period of July through November. As stated earlier herein,

Moody picked up her file, which included the signed home study,

fro m the Center. Morgan maintains the home study was still a

"work in progress" at that time. However, it had already been

signed and was dated April 18, 2006. (Moody was scheduled to

attend the Splitsville event on April 22 , 2007, and would have

needed a completed home study in order to attend.)

17. By Morgan's own admission, she was never in the home

of Moody and did not "effectively or efficiently manage" that

client's case. It was, as Morgan admitted, wrong to sign the

home study without having visite d the home. It appears the home

study was finished so that the family could attend the MAPP

event.

18. The next category of violation had to do with lost or

misplaced paperwork. A child placing agency must protect all

information provided to it by clien ts so that confidentiality is

maintained.

19. LaClair and her husband submitted a large packet of

information to Morgan as part of their attempt to adopt a child

through the Center. The information was lost or misplaced by

the Center on at least two (but possibly three) occasions. The

submitted information contained extremely confidential

information, including: marriage licenses, divorce decrees,

birth certificates, social security numbers, military

identification numbers , and insurance information.

20 . The last category of violation concerned failure by

Respondent to timely provide licenses to approved foster

parents. One of Respondent's clients, Barry Plesch, indicated a

long interval between verbal approval and receipt of his paper

license. Howeve r, he could not quantify the number of times nor

specifically remember what dates he may have called Respondent

to ask about the license.

21. Another client, Brad Farber, made numerous requests

for his license. When he expressed an urgent need for it, th e

license was produced forthwith.

22. On May 17, 2007 , Morgan met with representatives of

HKI to discuss the Moody home study and the situation relating

to confidential records. At that time, Morgan admitted to

falsifying the Moody home study. Morgan ac knowledged the

gravity and severity of that mistake. She did explain that her

office was undergoing reorganization at the time of Leggett's

visit, which was the reason so many files were lying around the

office.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

23. The Division of Adm inistrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (200 7 ). 2

24. Subsection 409.175, Florida Statutes, states in

relevant parts:

(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 licensin g requirements for such homes and

agencies and providing procedures to

determine adherence to these requirements.

* * *

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

in s. 120.52(9). A l icense under this

section is issued to a family foster home or

other facility and is not a professional

license of an y 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 privilege, and is not an entitlement.

Thi s privilege must guide the finder of fact

or trier of law at any administrative

proceeding or court actio n initiated by the

department.

* * *

(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 affecting the health or safety of

children in the home or agency.

25. Clearly, Respondent is subject to the pro visions of

the aforementioned statutory sections.

26. As stated in Subsection 63.162, Florida Statutes, "All

papers and records pertaining to the adoption, including the

original birth certificate, whether part of the permanent record

of the court or a fi le in the office of an adoption entity are

confidential and subject to inspection only upon order of the

court. . . ." Respondent's failure to secure the files in

its/her custody and to safeguard the information therein is a

clear violation of this confid entiality provision.

27. Subsection 63.212(2)(a), Florida Statutes, states:

It is unlawful for any person under this

chapter to:

1. Knowingly provide false information; or

2. Knowingly withhold material information.

Also, Florida Administrative Code R ule 65C - 15.028, provides:

"The agency shall make an evaluation of the adoptive family

before placement of a child, which shall include at least one

home visit."

28. By signing a home study which she had admittedly not

completed and which did not have t he requisite home visit,

Morgan knowingly provided false information. Her candid

admission of wrong during a meeting with DCF personnel is clear

evidence of this violation. As a result, the safety of adopting

and foster families and their childr en was po tentially

compromised.

29. It is axiomatic that agencies have the right to

interpret their own rules. And, the agency's interpretation is

entitled to great deference. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board

v. Harris , 772 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 2000); Colonnade M edical

Center, Inc. , v . State, Agency for Health Care Administration ,

847 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003 ). In the instant case, the

agency's interpretations of its rules concerning Respondent' s

actions were reasonable. There is no indication that DCF

crea ted or attempted to create a new or modified rule in

carrying out its duties in this matter. Rather, existing rules

were applied properly and are consist ent with DCF's

interpretations.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department

of Children and Family Services upholding the revocation of

Respondent' s child - placing agency license.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2 9 th day of November , 2007 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County , Florida.

S

R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN

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 2 9 th day of November , 2007 .

ENDNOTES

1/ Morgan maintains that the second home visit could be placed

in the same block of the table as the "Inquiry Home Vis it."

While that may be possible, it is somewhat illogical for two

reasons: (1) the block indicates an inquiry, not a final home

visit and (2) it ignores the fact that the home study was

already signed, suggesting that it was final.

2/ Unless stated oth erwise herein, all references to Florida

Statutes are to the 2007 version.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire

Jennifer Lima - Smith, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

Regional Headquarters

9393 North Florida Avenue, Suite 902

Tampa, Florida 33612

Clay W. Oberhausen, Esquire

2424 West Tampa Boulevard, D - 103

Tampa, Florida 33607

Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk

Department of Children and

Family Services

Building 2, Room 204B

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0 700

John Copelan, General Counsel

Department of Children and

Family Services

Building 2, Room 204

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

Robert Butterworth, Secretary

Department of Children and

Family Services

Building 1, Room 202

1 317 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.