97-005478 Samuel Wright And Ruby Wright vs. Department Of Children And Family Services Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, November 30, 1998.

Summary: Denial of foster family home license renewal was not warranted on grounds alleged in denial letter, where allegations against Petitioners successfully refuted.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SAMUEL WRIGHT and RUBY WRIGHT, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 97-5478

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILY SERVICES, )

)

Re spondent. )

__________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a Section 120.57(1) hearing was

conducted in this case on October 20, 1998, by video

teleconference at sites in West Palm Beach and Tallahassee,

Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Rendell Brown, Esquire

Brown and Marshall

319 Clematis Street, Suite 217

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

For Respondent: Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 201

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Petitioners' application for renewal of their family

foster home license should be denied on the grounds set forth in

the October 17, 1997, letter that they received from the

Department of Children and Family Services (Department). 1/

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated October 17, 1997, the Department advised

Petitioners of its intention to deny Petitioners' application for

renewal of their family foster home license. The letter read as

follows:

The Department of Children and Families

regrets to inform you that your foster care

license is not being renewed. This decision

is based on concerns that the quality of care

provided has not met the minimum standards

for foster parenting per Florida Statutes

409.175 and FAC 10M-6. These concerns are

based upon information provided by Department

staff who were responsible for supervising

children placed in your home and include:

Lack of interest in children's educational

needs . It was reported that you have not

assisted children with their homework. One

counselor had to intervene to request an

extension for a child to complete an

assignment that was a big part of his grade.

The counselor also had to help the child

complete the assignment as the child said no

one would help him at home. The school also

had to ask the counselor to have you respond

back to them about a permission slip for a

field trip for this child, after having sent

[it] home with no response. Another

counselor for a different child reported that

the school was concerned because after 4

weeks of school the child still had every

paper sent home in that time in his book bag.

These children were only 7 & 6 years old and

would thus need a good deal of structure and

guidance when it comes to their school work.

A general lack of interest in the individual

needs of the foster children placed in your

home . One counselor reported that instead of

letting her know that you did not have a

Medicaid card needed to purchase prescribed

vitamins for a child you just didn't get them

for the child. She learned of this by

questioning the child about whether he was

receiving his medication. The counselor for

another child stated that you stated there

were no problems with a little boy in your

home even though the counselor had received

information that there had been three

incidents in which this child had been caught

playing with fire in your home. It is

expected that foster parents will follow

through on obtaining medications for foster

children and alerting the counselor about

behaviors that may warrant additional

professional assistance. The counselors

cannot get the children needed services if

they are not made aware of any problems.

Issuance of a Restraining Order against your

seventeen year old son, Bertain . A family

from your neighborhood petitioned the court

for a restraining order against your son

Bertain who had been threatening their nephew

who resided with them. This boy also

happened to be a brother of two of the foster

children who were placed in your home at the

time. It is of concern due to the lack of

supervision of your son and the strain this

put on trying to maintain any connection

between your foster children and their

brother who had to [be] protected by this

restraining order.

The Department of Children & Families looks

to our foster families to provide a safe

nurturing environment for the children placed

in their care. They should be made to feel a

part of the family. The many concerns

brought to the Department's attention

indicate that this has not happened.

Please be advised that within thirty (30)

days of receipt of this letter, you may

contest the decision of this agency by

requesting an administrative hearing,

pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act

by sending a written request to:

Colleen Farnsworth

Department of Children & Families

District Legal Counsel

111 S. Sapodilla Ave. Rm 201

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

If we do not hear from you within the

specified time frame, we will consider this

matter resolved and you will forego any

further right to appeal.

On November 17, 1997, Petitioners filed a written request

for an administrative hearing on the matter. The Department, on

November 20, 1997, referred the matter to the Division of

Administrative Hearings (Division) for the assignment of a

Division administrative law judge to conduct the hearing

Petitioners had requested.

As noted above, the hearing was held on October 20, 1998

(following several continuances). At the hearing, the Department

presented the testimony of four witnesses, Mary Bosco, Vivian

Brown, Sheila Clark, and Rebecca Ann Walker, all of whom hold

administrative or supervisory positions with the Department. 2/

In addition, it offered, and the undersigned received, eight

exhibits (Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 5 and 7 through 9) into

evidence. Petitioner Ruby Wright testified on behalf of herself

and her husband, Petitioner Samuel Wright. Petitioners presented

no other evidence.

At the close of the evidentiary portion of the hearing on

October 20, 1998, the undersigned, on the record, advised that

Proposed Recommended Orders had to be filed within 20 days. The

Department and Petitioners filed their Proposed Recommended

Orders on November 9, 1998, and November 12, 1998, respectively.

These post-hearing submittals have been carefully considered by

the undersigned.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as

a whole, the following findings of fact are made:

Petitioners' Household

1. Petitioners are husband and wife. They live in a four-

bedroom home in Riviera Beach, Florida.

2. Mrs. Wright and her husband have eleventh and twelfth

grade educations, respectively.

3. Mr. Wright has been semi-retired for four or five years,

and he receives social security payments. To supplement this

income, he works on a regular basis as a gardener. Mrs. Wright

is a homemaker.

4. Petitioners have six natural children, all of whom are

adults and live outside of Petitioners' home.

5. Petitioners also have two adopted children, both of whom

live with Petitioners. Their adopted son, Bertain, is 17 years

of ageacy Michelle, their adopted daughter, is approximately

five years younger than Bertain.

6. There are two other current members of Petitioners'

household, Tmorris C. and Tavares T., the young sons of one of

Petitioners' daughters. Tmorris and Tavares were taken from

their mother and placed in Petitioners' custody by the Department

in 1996, when Tmorris was approximately 11 months old and Tavares

was almost two years of age.

Petitioners' Record as Family Foster Home Licensees

7. Petitioners are seeking the renewal of a family foster

home license that they were first issued in 1977. In the 19

years that they operated a licensed family foster home,

Petitioners cared for many foster children, including those with

special needs. They treated their foster children in the same

loving and caring manner that they treated their own children,

and provided them with a reasonably safe and nurturing

environment.

8. At no time during the period that they operated their

family foster home did the Department or its predecessor initiate

any action to effect the revocation of Petitioners' license.

9. Petitioners were last relicensed in 1996, pursuant to

the recommendation of Jo Ann Weisiger, a Children and Families

relicensing counselor who issued the following report after

conducting a relicensing home study:

AGENCY EXPERIENCE

Mr. and Mrs. Wright were initially licensed

on 09/26/77.

COMPOSITION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE HOME

The Wrights reside in Riviera Beach, just

north of 8th Street, near schools, churches

and other health and recreational facilities.

Mr. Wright is painting the interior of the

house. Current residents of the home are Sam

Wright, age 73; Ruby Wright, age 62; adopted

daughter, Tracy Michelle Wright, age 10; and

son Berta[i]n, 14. There have been no major

changes in the household during the past

year.

FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE HOME/QUALITY OF LIFE

During the past year, the Wrights have cared

for 16 foster children. There are currently

6 foster children in the home; Julius [H.],

5; Robert [D.], 7; Kenneth [J.], 7; Sheanna

[W.], 7; Steven [W.], 6; and Amanda [W.], 4.

There have been issues arising concerning

allegations of physical discipline in the

home, but none of these could be

substantiated. The children have been

appropriately clothed during licensing

visits. Mrs. Wright responds to school

concerns and transports to medical

appointments. During a visit to the home on

3/20/96, the children all responded

affectionately to the foster parents, and

seemed happy and adequately cared for in this

home. The children have been interviewed on

two separate occasions and showed no fear of

the foster parents, no signs of marks or

bruises, and made no statements indicating

that they have been spanked. The two older

Willis children have severe developmental and

emotional problems, and the Wrights have

requested that they be replaced as soon as

possible. They are difficult to handle, and

inappropriately placed in this home.

EMPLOYMENT/FINACES

Mr. Wright is retired and the Wrights receive

$1600.00 in Social Security and retirement

income. They appear to manage their finances

adequately.

HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE

Although Mr. Wright is in his seventies, he

is active and involved with the children.

Sanitation inspection on 2/21/96 was

satisfactory.

IN-SERVICE TRAINING

Both foster parents completed Mini Mapp on

5/17/95. They will have 7 hours in this

relicensing period, and attended the MAPP 11

training on 2/20/96 for an additional 3

hours.

REFERENCES/SCREENING

Local and PBSO law enforcement checks showed

no records for the Wrights, and the Abuse

Registry check was clear. Mr. Wright has

been re-screened for fingerprints, as the

original fingerprint records were lost from

1987. There are no new household members.

No staff inquiries were returned, but there

have been no major concerns expressed by any

of the counselors who visit the home. The

concerns about spanking the children have

been addressed, and there is no indication

that the Wrights are using inappropriate

discipline.

SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS

Relicense for 3 children, school age. Due to

Mr. Wright's age, over capacity should be

avoided whenever possible .

10. In early 1996, as part of the license renewal process,

Petitioners signed an "Agreement to Provide Substitute Care for

Dependent Children." In so doing, they agreed to, among other

things, the following:

2. We are fully and directly responsible to

the department for the care of the

child. . . .

3. We will accept the above board rate per

month [$185.00] on behalf of the child in

accordance with the department's established

uniform rate structure for dependent

children. . . .

15. We will comply with all requirements for

a licensed substitute care home as prescribed

by the department. . . .

11. Petitioners last had foster children in their home in

December of 1996. At that time only three of the six foster

children mentioned in Ms. Weisiger's report remained in the home.

Sheanna W., Steven W., and Amanda W. had been placed elsewhere at

Petitioners' request.

The Department's Allegations: What the Evidence Shows

Specific Allegations in the October 17, 1997, Denial Letter

Alleged Lack of Interest in Educational Needs

12. Petitioners took an interest in the educational needs

of their foster children.

13. They asked their foster children, on a regular basis,

if they had homework and, if the children responded in the

affirmative, made sure that the children did their homework.

Petitioners themselves did not assist the children in completing

homework assignments, but, if the children needed such

assistance, Petitioners made arrangements for other members of

the family (who were better equipped to provide assistance) to

help the children.

14. Kenneth J. is the foster child referred to in the

second and third sentences of the paragraph of the October 17,

1997, denial letter detailing Petitioners' alleged "[l]ack of

interest in [their foster] children's educational needs"

(Education Paragraph). If in fact Kenneth told a counselor that

Petitioners ignored his request for help in completing the

assignment referred to in the second and third sentences of this

paragraph, 3/ Kenneth was not being truthful. If Kenneth did

not receive any assistance at home on this project, it was only

because he did not let Petitioners know that he needed help. He

invariably told Petitioners, when asked by them about his

homework, either that he had done his homework at school, or that

he knew how to do it without anyone's help.

15. The foster child involved in the "permission slip"

incident discussed in the fourth sentence of the Education

Paragraph was actually Robert D., not Kenneth J. (as the

paragraph suggests). Although Robert's teacher may have sent

home with him a form for Petitioners to sign to permit Robert to

go on a class trip, Robert never presented the form to

Petitioners. Instead, he told Mrs. Wright that he had lost the

form. Mrs. Wright advised Robert to ask his teacher for another

permission slip. The next morning, Robert's teacher telephoned

Petitioners and spoke with Mrs. Wright about Robert's failure to

hand in a signed permission slip. Mrs. Wright explained to the

teacher that Robert had told her that he had lost the permission

slip he had been given to take home. The teacher advised Mrs.

Wright that she would send Petitioners another permission slip

for them to sign. Upon receiving this second permission slip,

Mrs. Wright signed it and returned it to the teacher, and Robert

thus was able to go on the trip.

16. Julius H. is the foster child who, according to the

fifth sentence of the Education Paragraph, allegedly had

accumulated in his book bag four weeks worth of papers that were

"sent home" with him. Julius was in kindergarten at the time.

Mrs. Wright actually saw these papers that Julius had brought

home from school with him (in his book bag) during this four-week

period. After Mrs. Wright removed the papers from the book bag,

Julius put them back in the bag, explaining to Mrs. Wright that

he needed to keep the papers.

Alleged General Lack of Interest in Needs of Foster Children

17. Petitioners made a good faith effort to meet the

individual needs of their foster children.

18. Kenneth J. is the foster child referred to in the first

and second sentences of the paragraph of the October 17, 1997,

denial letter detailing Petitioners' alleged "general lack of

interest in the individual needs of the foster children placed in

[their] home" (Needs Paragraph). It is true that, at first,

Petitioners did not have a Medicaid card for Kenneth, as alleged

in this portion of the Needs Paragraph. There is, however, no

truth to the assertion that, because they did not have his

Medicaid card, Petitioners did not get the vitamins that had been

prescribed for Kenneth. In fact, they purchased the vitamins

with their own funds. Furthermore, Mrs. Wright told Kenneth's

counselor, the next time she saw the counselor, that she did not

have Kenneth's Medicaid card.

19. Robert D. is the foster child referred to in the third

sentence of the Needs Paragraph. Mrs. Wright did in fact learn

that Robert had been playing with fire, as this sentence

suggests. There, however, was only one such incident (not three)

and it occurred, not in the home, but outside of the home in an

area where Robert was playing with other children. One of the

other children alerted Mrs. Wright, and she went outside to

investigate. When she arrived at the scene, the fire was already

out. Mrs. Wright spoke with Robert about the matter. He

promised not to play with fire again, and he kept his promise.

There were no subsequent incidents. Following the incident, Mrs.

Wright telephoned Robert's counselor and told the counselor what

Robert had done.

The Restraining Order against Bertain

20. In August of 1996, Bertain was involved in a dispute

with Robert D.'s and Julius H.'s brother, Jessie S., who lived

across the street from Petitioners' home. The dispute concerned

a girl that Bertain and Jessie both liked. Before the dispute

arose, Bertain and Jessie were good friends. The dispute caused

a rift in their relationship and it escalated to the point where

Jessie's aunt, with whom Jessie has living at the time, sought

and obtained (on Jessie's behalf) a restraining order (dated

August 26, 1996) against Bertain, which provided as follows:

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on August 14,

1996 upon Petitioner's application for an

Injunction for Protection Against Repeat

Violence pursuant to Section 784.046, Florida

Statutes, and it appearing that an immediate

and present danger of Repeat Violence exists,

and the court being fully advised in the

premises, it is:

1. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent:

RUBY WRIGHT O/B/O BERTAIN WRIGHT (MINOR

CHILD) is hereby restrained and enjoined from

committing any acts of violence, to wit:

assault, battery, sexual battery or stalking

on the Petitioner:

ANNA WHITE & ANNA WHITE O/B/O JESSIE

[S.](MINOR CHILD)

or any member of Petitioner's immediate

family. The Respondent is restrained from

threatening the Petitioner or any member of

the Petitioner's immediate family, either

directly or indirectly, at any time or place

whatsoever.

2. Respondent shall not enter on

Petitioner's residential premises . . ., or

wherever Petitioner may reside in the State

of Florida.

3. Respondent shall not enter onto

Petitioner's place of employment . . ., or

wherever Petitioner may be employed in the

State of Florida.

4. Upon Petitioner's request an officer from

an appropriate law enforcement agency shall

accompany the Petitioner and assist in the

execution of service of the Injunction.

5. The following provisions are necessary to

protect the Petitioner from Repeat Violence.

THE PARTIES SHALL HAVE NO CONTACT IN PERSON,

DIRECT OR INDIRET, BY PHONE, BY MAIL, BY

THIRD PERSONS, EXCEPT BY COURT ORDER, AT

COURT APPEARANCES OR THROUGH ATTORNEYS.

6. Any relief granted by this Injunction

shall be effective for a period not to exceed

6 months form the date hereof. The

Petitioner may petition the court for

extension of provisions of this Injunction

prior to the conclusion of the period

specified herein.

7. The Clerk of the Court shall forward a

copy of this Injunction to the Sheriff with

jurisdiction over the residence of the

Petitioner within twenty-four (24) hours

after its entry.

8. THIS INJUNCTION IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE

IN ALL COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

This was the first and last time that Bertain was involved in any

legal proceeding concerning his conduct.

21. Bertain's dispute with Jessie did not interfere with

Bertain's relationship with Robert and Julius. Bertain continued

to get along well with both Robert and Julius, notwithstanding

the dispute.

22. Mrs. Wright discussed the subject of the dispute and

the resulting restraining order with Mary Bosco, a Department

administrator involved in the licensure of family foster homes.

During the conversation, Mrs. Wright told Ms. Bosco that she

(Mrs. Wright) was doing her "best with Bertain," but she could

not go everywhere that Bertain went, a comment that should not be

construed to reflect negatively upon Mrs. Wright as a parent. It

would be unreasonable to expect a parent to accompany a teenage

son the age of Bertain (at the time of Mrs. Wright's conversation

with Ms. Bosco) everywhere the son went.

23. There has been no showing that Petitioners have acted

irresponsibly in discharging their responsibilities as Bertain's

parents.

Other Specific Allegations

24. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department

asserts that "Petitioners exhibited poor judgment in allowing the

children (T. C. [Tmorris] and T. T. [Tavares]) named in F.P.S.S.

#96-125319 to spend time unsupervised with their mother."

25. The evidence establishes, however, that when

Petitioners (specifically, Mrs. Wright) brought Tmorris and

Tavares to visit their mother (which visits the judge in the

dependency proceeding encouraged), Mrs. Wright remained with the

boys for the duration of the visit.

26. The Department also states in its Proposed Recommended

Order that "Department counselors had to 'beg' Petitioners to

cooperate in providing services to the foster children."

Although the Department does not identify the children to whom it

is making reference, it appears that the Department is referring

to Tmorris and Tavares, who technically are not Petitioners'

foster children inasmuch as Petitioners are their grandparents

and do not receive reimbursement for caring for them. 4/ In any

event, the evidence does not support the Department's assertion

concerning Petitioners' reluctance to ensure that their

grandchildren (while in their care) received needed services.

Rather, it appears that, when Petitioners became aware of the

children's need for services, they acted in a reasonable and

responsible manner.

27. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department

further alleges that "[a]t one time Petitioner[s] requested that

their own grandchildren be removed from their home due to the

fact that they were no longer receiving foster care payments for

them." Mrs. Wright did initially become upset when she learned

that she and her husband would not be receiving any payments from

the State for caring for Tmorris and Tavares. She then "thought

differently about the matter" and realized that she and her

husband had made the right decision in agreeing to assume

responsibility for caring for their grandchildren,

notwithstanding that they would not be paid for doing so.

28. The additional allegation is made in the Department's

Proposed Recommended Order that "Petitioners failed to provide

appropriate educational and recreational activities for the

children [who lived in their home] and lack the capacity to do

so." According to the Department, the children spent "the

majority of their hours watching television." The evidence,

however, reveals otherwise. Petitioners provided the children

with bicycles to ride and games to play. They went fishing with

them and took them to the park on a regular basis. Whenever

Petitioners went to visit relatives, the children accompanied

them. Living with Petitioners did not result in the children

being deprived of appropriate educational or recreational

activities.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

29. With certain exceptions not applicable to the instant

case, "a person, family foster home, or residential child-caring

agency shall not receive a child for continuing full-time care or

custody unless such person, home, or agency has first procured a

license from the [D]epartment to do so." Section 409.175(3)(a),

Florida Statutes.

30. The Department may deny an application for an initial

or renewal family foster home license, or it may suspend or

revoke a family foster home license it has already issued, if the

applicant or licensee has committed: "[a]n intentional or

negligent act materially affecting the health or safety of

children in the [applicant's or licensee's] home"; or "[a]

violation of the provisions of [Section 409.175, Florida

Statutes] or of licensing rules promulgated pursuant to this

section [which are currently found in Chapter 65C-13.011, Florida

Administrative Code]." Section 409.175(8)(b)1 and 2, Florida

Statutes.

31. In the instant case, the Department advised

Petitioners, by letter dated October 17, 1997, of its intention

to deny their application for renewal of their family foster care

license "based on concerns [more specifically described in the

letter] that the quality of care provided has not met the minimum

standards for foster parenting per Florida Statutes 409.175 and

FAC 10M-6 [the relevant portions of which have been transferred

to Chapter 65C-13, Florida Administrative Code]." Although no

specific provisions of either Section 409.175, Florida Statutes,

or Chapter 10M-6, Florida Administrative Code, were cited in the

Department's October 17, 1997, letter, the Department has taken

the position in its Proposed Recommended Order that the denial of

Petitioners' relicensure is warranted because of Petitioners'

violations of the following specific provisions of Section

409.175, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 65C-13.011, Florida

Administrative Code:

409.175(4)(a) The [D]epartment shall adopt

and amend licensing rules for family foster

homes . . . . The requirements for licensure

and operation of family foster homes . . .

shall include: . . .

2. The provision of food, clothing,

educational opportunities, services,

equipment, and individual supplies to assure

the healthy physical, emotional, and mental

development of the children served.

3. The appropriateness, safety, cleanliness,

and general adequacy of the premises,

including fire prevention and health

standards, to provide for the physical

comfort, care, and well-being of the children

served.

Rule 65C-13.010(1) Responsibilities of the

Substitute Parent to the Child.

(a) General.

1. To give love, acceptance, and care to a

child without expecting a demonstration of

appreciation from the child. . . .

(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. . . .

b. The substitute care parents are expected

to transport children for medical, dental or

other appointments which may be needed. . . .

c. The substitute care parents must inform

the counselor of medical and dental treatment

of children, and keep clear records of these

treatments. . . .

7 . Medicine.

a. The substitute care parents must be

responsible for dispensing the medication as

prescribed by the physician and recording the

exact amount of any medication prescribed for

a child by a physician or dentist. . . .

8. Recreation and community.

a. The substitute parents are expected to

provide opportunities for recreational

activities for the children. The activities

must be appropriate to the child's age and

abilities. . . .

9. Education. . . .

c. The substitute care parents must

participate in the child's school activities,

including regular teacher conferences.

d. The substitute care parents are expected

to keep the counselor informed of educational

plans, activities, school problems and the

educational progress of the child, and to

keep records of the same.

(c) Substitute Parent Responsibilities.

1. Substitute care parents are expected to

work cooperatively with the counselor as a

member of a treatment team in seeking

counseling, participating in consultation,

and preparing and implementing the

performance agreement or permanent placement

plan for each child. . . .

3. The substitute care parents are expected

to maintain records in accordance with the

department's procedures for the children

placed in their home. The records must

include: . . . .

h. School reports, if applicable;

32. The evidence that the Department presented at hearing

to prove that its "quality of care" concerns are justified

consisted almost exclusively of hearsay evidence that would not

be admissible over objection in a civil proceeding in Florida.

Petitioners, on the other hand, to show that the Department's

concerns are unwarranted, presented the testimony of someone with

personal knowledge regarding the matters about which the

Department is concerned: Mrs. Wright. She testified with

apparent candor and sincerity, and the undersigned has credited

her testimony.

33. Based upon Mrs. Wright's testimony, the undersigned

finds that Petitioners, as foster parents, have not deviated from

the requirements of Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, and

Chapter 13C-13.010, Florida Statutes, in the manner alleged by

the Department and therefore Petitioners' application for

relicensure should not be denied on the grounds asserted by the

Department.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order declining to

deny Petitioners' application for renewal of their family foster

home license on the grounds set forth in October 17, 1997, letter

that they received from the Department.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1998, in

Tallahassee, Florida.

___________________________________

STUART M. LERNER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 30th day of November, 1998.

ENDNOTES

1/ Petitioners' application for licensure may be denied only

upon those grounds of which they were given appropriate notice.

See Woodholly Associates v. Department of Natural Resources ,

451 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

2/ None of the Department counselors referenced in the

Department's October 17, 1997, denial letter were called by the

Department to testify.

3/ At hearing, the Department offered the testimony of neither

Kenneth J., nor the counselor, to substantiate the allegation

that Kenneth made this statement to the counselor.

4/ Section 409.175(2)(e), Florida Statutes, provides, in

pertinent part, that "[a] relative who cares for a child and does

not receive reimbursement for such care from the state or federal

government . . . is not considered a family foster home."

COPIES FURNISHED:

Rendell Brown, Esquire

Brown and Marshall

319 Clematis Street, Suite 217

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 201

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk

Department of Children and

Family Services

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Building Two, Suite 204

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.