97-005615 Ronnie G. Rich And Pamela G. Rich vs. Department Of Children And Family Services Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, August 1, 2001.

Summary: Petitioners` application to become adoptive parents should be granted. Flyspecking by Department of Petitioners as foster parents did not justify conclusion that Petitioners had problems forming parent-child relationship with appropriate boundaries.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RONNIE G. RICH AND )

PAMELA G. RICH, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 97-5615

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILY SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

on March 21 and 22, 2001, in Shalimar, Florida, before the

Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated

Administrative Law Judge, Diane Cleavinger.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner : Christopher P. Saxer, Esquire

Christopher P. Saxer, P.A.

126 Eglin Parkway, Northeast

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548-4917

For Respondent : Eric D. Schurger, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

160 Governmental Center, Suite 601

Pensacola, Florida 32501

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner's application to become adoptive parents

with the Department should be granted.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated October 14, 1997, Respondent informed

Petitioners, that based on the eligibility criteria contained in

HRS Manual 175-16, 5-8, Respondent denied Petitioners'

application to adopt a child. The denial was based on

Petitioners' alleged problems with establishing appropriate

parent-child relationships with appropriate boundaries.

On November 13, 1997, Petitioners demanded a formal

hearing. The matter was forwarded to the Division of

Administrative Hearings for formal hearing.

At the hearing, Petitioners testified in their own behalf

and called three witnesses to testify. Petitioners also offered

one exhibit into evidence. Respondent called four witnesses to

testify and offered seven exhibits into evidence.

After the hea ring the parties filed Proposed Recommended

Orders on April 23, 2001, and June 28, 2001, respectively.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Beginning in November 1993, Petitioners were foster

parents licensed by the Department. They stopped fostering in

1997.

2. On Ma rch 25, 1997, Petitioners submitted an application

to become adoptive parents through the Department.

3. On August 22, 1997, an adoptive home study was

completed by Ms. Townsend, supervisor of adoption and

out-of-home care for the Department and adoption counselor for

Petitioners. Among other things, the home study consisted of an

interview with Petitioners and a review of Petitioners' history

as foster parents. Ms. Townsend testified that when asked,

Petitioners said they wanted to adopt a little girl under four.

However, because of the age desired, such a child is not a

special needs child.

4. After completion of her review, Ms. Townsend identified

the following needs in Petitioners:

1. Appear to allow emotions to influence

their judgment.

2. Appear to be inflexible when presented an

opinion different from their own where

children are concerned.

3. Seem to have unrealistic "love conquers

all" attitude about special needs

children.

4. Appear to have trouble defining

boundaries in their relationships with

children.

5. Need to develop more structure and

objectivity when dealing with special

needs children.

6. It appears that they may,

unintentionally, encourage the dependence

of children on them in an effort to

demonstrate their love.

7. Ma y need to examine more closely their

motivation and apparent need to have a

child.

8. Need to develop a more positive working

relationship with the Department.

5. The needs referenced above were based on the interviews

with Petitioners and their history as foster parents.

Ms. Townsend also identified several strengths that Petitioners

had as adoptive applicants. These strengths were:

1. Family has knowledge and experience with

special needs children.

2. Committed and sincere desire to adopt.

3. Willingness to take an active role in the

lives of children.

4. Demonstrated ability to accept children

regardless of their problems.

5. Provide assurance to children that they

are loved and cared about.

6. Open, verbal, and demonstrative people.

7. Ac tively pursue what is in the best

interest of children.

8. Stable marriage of twenty-five years.

9. Stable and well kept home with space

available for expanding the family.

10. Stable and more than adequate employment and

income.

6. Based upon her assessment of Petitioners, Ms. Townsend

felt Petitioners' deficiencies outweighed their strengths. She

recommended denial of Petitioners' application and that they

pursue adoption of a non-special needs child.

7. Per Department procedure, an adoptive applica nt review

committee was convened to consider Petitioners' application.

The committee consisted of Ms. Winters, operations management

specialist; chairperson, Mary Alegretti; Diane Rickman; Sheila

Sinkfield; and Donna Veline. The committee report attached the

foster parent adoptive home study, the foster parent

re-licensing study, the original foster home study, a memorandum

from Tom Waltz, foster child licensing counselor, dated

January 8, 1997, a memorandum from Tom Waltz dated August 19,

1994, and a memorandum from Michele Shaner, foster care

counselor, dated October 5, 1994, and the individual

recommendations of all the committee members.

8. The attachments to the committee's report identified

difficulties Petitioners had concerning foster children

previously in their care. Those documents related specific

concerns based on incidents regarding foster children J.J.,

H.J., and D.C.

9. The committee identified the following areas of concern

for Petitioners:

They really do not want to adopt a special

needs child. When the adoption counselor

pointed out to them on more than one

occasion that the type of child they were

describing was not special needs, they then

said they would consider a sibling group, as

long as one of the siblings was a little

girl.

It appears they have had problems in

establishing appropriate parent-child

relationships with appropriate boundaries.

R.R. and P.R. did not respond appropriately

when a foster child in their home was on

runaway status; they withheld information

from the Department concerning her possible

whereabouts.

10. Based on those concerns, the committee unanimously

recommended denial of Petitioners' application to become

adoptive parents. District legal counsel and the district

administrator concurred with that recommendation.

11. Petitioners were notified of the denial. The denial

was based upon an evaluation of Petitioners' capacity for

parenthood pursuant to the Department's service manual, HRS

manual 175-16. The denial letter only cited Petitioners'

demonstrated problem in establishing appropriate parent-child

relationships with appropriate boundaries.

12. Parenting a special needs child is more complicated

and demanding than parenting a child without special needs. For

the most part, special needs children come to the Department

after they have been removed from or abandoned by the parents or

other guardian . They often come from abusive or neglectful

homes. Many special needs children have emotional and

behavioral problems. The various problems a child may have

differ with each child.

13. Generally, special needs children, and probably all

children, need clear and consistent boundaries with enforced

structure in their daily lives. The required amount of

boundaries and structure will differ from child to child. Each

child's individual problems must be dealt with in a consistent

manner. In fact, the Riches are very familiar with the varying

problems and difficulties associated with special needs children

and have dealt with each child they fostered in appropriate

ways.

14. Importantly, at no point in this review process was a

specific child being considered for adoption. Because there is

no specific child's needs under consideration, this case does

not encompass whether a specific child would be a good adoptive

match with Petitioners. Additionally because there is no

specific child's needs under consideration, whether Petitioners

could theoretically meet the theoretical needs of any and all

special needs children is not the issue in this case. This case

only encompasses whether Petitioners demonstrate the qualities

expected of good parents.

15. Ronnie Rich and his wife Pamela Rich have been married

for 29 years. Mr. Rich has been employed with the Pensacola

newspaper since 1982. He often works at night. Although

Petitioners never ruled out the possibility that Pam Rich might

become pregnant, they had discussed adoption from the very start

of their relationship. They both felt there were too many kids

in the world already who needed somebody.

16. The Riches are very family oriented and participate in

their church and church-sponsored activities. Ms. Rich is

politically active in various social causes. They are somewhat

"counter- culturish." Neither Ms. Rich's activism, nor the

Riches' religious views have been pushed on any foster child in

their care. Both Riches are very caring individuals.

17. The Riches became interested in fostering because of

an incident that occurred in 1983 with a young child who lived

behind them. The child eventually ended up in protective

placement. During the process, the Riches met with Janice

Jeffcoat who performed the investigation concerning their

neighbor. Later they decided to become foster parents with the

intention of having the neighbor's child placed with them. For

reasons not related here, the placement did not occur.

18. Once the Riches began fostering children, they found

that they had a knack with the kids they were fostering. At the

time they decided to adopt a special needs child they had had a

few years experience with special needs children. The Riches

recognized that special needs children can be the hardest

children to care for.

19. Petitioners' first foster child was H.J, a 15-year-old

female child.

20. H.J. was known as a difficult child to place anywhere.

She was particularly difficult for new and inexperienced foster

parents.

21. Petitioners describe H.J. as "a shocker." H.J. was

known to say things to people just to see what kind of rise she

could get from them. She would lie down in the hallway as if

she were dead when someone opened the front door. She once told

a dinner guest, Reverend Hawkins, that she was part of a group

that sacrificed animals.

22. H.J. had a history of violence with her step-mother

and with her brother. The family had several knock-down- dragout

fights, involving serious physical violence. H.J. had serious

emotional and mental health problems. She often tantrumed, lost

control of her behavior, injured herself, damaged property, and

verbally abused others. This behavior was exhibited during her

stay at the Riches. None-the-less, H.J. stayed with them for 5

months.

23. During H.J.'s time at the Riches' home, she was seeing

Chris Guy in therapy. The Riches supported and participated in

that therapy. In fact, H.J. made progress in controlling

herself while under the care of the Riches. Her behavior

deteriorated when she learned that she was going to be placed

with her uncle in Alabama.

24. Finally she was removed from the Riches' home when one

night she became uncontrollable, self-injurious, destructive,

and threatening toward Ms. Rich. She ended up in the hospital,

where the Riches stayed with her until three o'clock in the

morning. After a short placement with another foster home, H.J.

was placed with her uncle in Alabama.

25. The Department's concerns as to H.J., were that Pam

Rich had taken H.J. to hear a band at a restaurant where alcohol

was served; used the term "jail bait"; allegedly encouraged

H.J.'s interest in the occult; allegedly encouraged H.J. to

explore her lesbian feelings; and stated a favorable opinion on

the legalization of marijuana. H.J. did not testify at the

hearing regarding the validity of the Department's concerns or

her perception of the Riches' behavior or lifestyle. Moreover,

all of these concerns were investigated by the Department with

subsequent recommendations for relicensure as foster parents.

26. During the course of her stay with the Riches, H.J.

wanted to go see a band that was playing at a popular restaurant

in town. Ms. Rich agreed that H.J. could go to the performance

as long as Ms. Rich accompanied her. While there Ms. Rich drank

one glass of wine in the presence of H.J. During a break, an

older man with the band began to "hit" on H.J. in an attempt to

pick her up. The man's English was not very good. In an effort

to quickly terminate the man's pursuit, Ms. Rich told the man

that he needed to leave because H.J. was "jail bait." She used

the term to make the man understand his attention was not wanted

and that he should go away. The man promptly left. Ms. Rich

did not intend the term "jail bait" to be derogatory to H.J.

She intended to use the term to communicate very quickly to the

man in a language he could understand that serious consequences

would ensue if he continued to pursue H.J. There was no

evidence that H.J. found the remark offensive or derogatory.

There was also no evidence that H.J. needed to be protected from

an adult appropriately having a glass of wine.

27. At some point during her stay with the Riches, H.J.

elected to participate in the Riches' church and some of its

church-sponsored functions. Ms. Rich and H.J. attended a

chaperoned youth conference sponsored by the church in south

Florida. Unknown to Ms. Rich, H.J. was "hit on" by another girl

at the youth conference who allegedly was gay. Upon returning

home, H.J. told Ms. Rich about the incident. Ms. Rich asked

H.J. if the incident bothered her. H.J. said that it didn't.

Ms. Rich told H.J. about a triangular pendant she wore that

indicated that it is okay that another person is gay, but that

the wearer of the pendant is not gay. The pendant is known as a

PFLAG pendant. PFLAG stands for Parents and Friends of Lesbians

and Gays. Afterward, H.J. on her own bought a PFLAG pendant at

the Crystal Center where she took yoga classes. Additionally,

at some point, H.J. asked Ms. Rich how she would react if she

told her she was gay. Ms. Rich told H.J. that it would be okay.

H.J. then informed Ms. Rich that she was not gay; Ms. Rich told

H.J. that not being gay was okay too. Ms. Rich only had these

discussions at H.J.'s prompting. Ms. Rich did not initiate

H.J.'s discussions about homosexuality. She did not encourage

H.J. to purchase a PFLAG pendant. On another occasion, after

hearing a song by a popular group about legalizing marijuana,

H.J. inquired about the Riches' position on the subject. The

Riches explained that while it might be a sound policy to

legalize marijuana and treat it more like alcohol, alcohol and

marijuana were illegal substances for a teenager and were

strictly prohibited in their family. H.J. then changed the

subject and moved on to other things.

28. There was no evidence that H.J.'s parental needs

included a boundary excluding honest discussion of homosexuality

or marijuana when H.J. raised such. Teenagers will raise

controversial issues with the adults who are significant in the

teenagers life. The Riches' responses were not inappropriate.

Again these facts do not support the conclusion that either Rich

demonstrated an inability to set appropriate boundaries for a

special needs child.

29. Finally, H.J. had some interest in the occult. The

evidence did not show that this interest was serious, but was

more of the behavior H.J. used to shock others. When H.J. came

to the Riches' she brought a voodoo doll with her. She stapled

it to the wall and never moved the doll from that spot. The

Riches never saw her use the doll for voodoo purposes. At some

point, H.J., like other teenagers, wanted a Ouija board.

Mr. Rich purchased a Ouija board for H.J. He did not find it

unusual to buy H.J. a Ouija board because he had had a Ouija

board when he was growing up. He saw the board as a game and

did not associate the board with the occult. The evidence did

not show that the Riches used crystals and chanted. The

evidence did not show that the Riches encouraged H.J. to use

crystals and chant. The evidence did not demonstrate that any

of this activity was a necessary boundary which H.J. required to

be maintained. Again these facts do not establish that the

Riches do not have the ability to set appropriate boundaries for

children.

30. After H.J., two sisters from Santa Rosa County were

placed with Petitioners. Petitioners were told that nobody in

Escambia or Santa Rosa County would take them in. The sisters

had been in foster care prior to this placement and an older

sister had been removed from the home permanently. The girls'

father had a history of violence. The oldest of the two girls

placed with Petitioners made accusations of inappropriate

touching by the father. The girls had problems as to how they

related to each other and discussed things. During the

placement, Petitioners, who live in Escambia County, traveled

with the girls to and from appointments in Milton, Okaloosa

County, Florida; they also attended court hearings with them.

The girls were in their care for a few months. No Department

concerns were noted for this placement.

31. The next placement to Petitioners' home was K. She

came to Petitioners from Turning Point. Turning Point is a

facility for young girls with serious behavioral problems. The

facility's purpose is behavior modification.

32. K. was a very difficult child. She would be happy and

laughing one minute and the next, she would close down.

33. During her stay with the Riches, K. was finishing the

program at Turning Point. However, her mother was not prepared

to take her back into her home. The Riches were a "gap period"

placement between the time K. left Turning Point until her

mother could make proper living arrangements with a place for K.

34. During the placement, the Riches worked very closely

with various therapists and case workers at Turning Point.

Turning Point staff were sometimes in and out of Petitioners'

home three or four times a week, visiting K. and holding therapy

sessions. Staff would come once a week to see the Riches and to

see if they had any problems.

35. K. was reunited with her Mother. The Riches remain

friends with K. and her mother and maintain contact with them.

The Department did not have any concerns with this placement.

36. After K., J.J. was placed with the Riches. Up to this

time, Mr. Rich stated that they had had older female children.

J.J. was 2 years, 10 months old upon her arrival at the Riches'

home. She stayed with the Riches for 15 months and was 4 years

old when she left.

37. J.J.'s problems were not the same as those of the

other foster children who had been placed with Petitioners. She

had more serious behavioral and emotional problems. She soiled

her pants, did not sleep through the night, and had nightmares.

She came from a home with a tremendous amount of drugs, alcohol,

and violence. Sexual abuse was not an issue with J.J. On one

occasion, Mrs. Rich asked J.J. what she was looking for in the

hallway. J.J. replied that she was looking for the blood.

Later, the Riches learned that her mother had been beaten so

severely by her father that there was blood in the hallway.

J.J., at the age of three, was in therapy. J.J. improved at the

Riches' home.

38. While J.J. was in the Riches' home, it was normal for

the Riches to rock J.J. to quiet her before bedtime. It was a

period of time for her to stop from the rushing of the day and

settle down before bedtime. Her bedtime was fairly early in the

evening just after supper.

39. The Department's concern as to J.J. was related to

bathing. The child was not yet old enough to be left

unsupervised in the bath tub. Therefore, someone had to watch

her while she bathed. Most often, Ms. Rich was responsible for

supervising J.J.'s bath. Occasionally, Ms. Rich would shower or

bathe with J.J. Usually, she would keep an eye on J.J. while

J.J. was in the bath tub. About once a month, Mr. Rich

supervised the end of J.J.'s bathing. He would keep an eye on

her from the hallway. The only time, Mr. Rich was called on to

supervise J.J.'s bath was when Ms. Rich had to leave J.J. to

begin cooking or take care of some other task which had to be

done so that J.J. could get to bed on time. Nothing the Riches

did regarding J.J.'s bath was unusual or abnormal. Clearly,

given the age of J.J., the Riches acted responsibly in

supervising J.J. in the bath. There was no evidence which

demonstrated that such a bathing routine was harmful to J.J. or

was an inappropriate boundary regarding her, especially since

sexual abuse was not an issue with her. The Department came to

the same conclusion when it relicensed the Riches as foster

parents.

40. Petitioners wanted to adopt J.J. after J.J.'s case

worker expressed the possibility to them. However, the Riches

were not kept informed of the Department's ongoing efforts to

reunite J.J. with her parents. With these mixed signals about

whether she would be staying with the Riches on a permanent

basis or whether she would be reunified with her mother and

father J.J. quickly reverted back to soiling her pants, not

sleeping through the night, and having nightmares. J.J. was

reunited with her parents. The Riches experienced considerable

remorse over the loss of J.J. They felt department staff had

misled them and cruelly raised their hopes about adoption

of J.J.

41. In October, 1996, after investigation of the above

concerns, the Department found the Riches had a lot to offer its

special needs children and recommended relicensure. The Riches

were found to have used appropriate discipline; were committed

to the children placed in their care; provided a warm, friendly,

and caring environment to those foster children; and were

extremely cooperative with the Department on fostering issues.

Two foster care counselors thought they were above satisfactory

in all areas of fostering.

42. Before J.J. left the Riches' home, Delores Shelton,

formerly known as D.C., was placed with the Riches. She was 16

years old.

43. Beginning with her father, Delores had been passed

around among various males in and out of her family. Once her

father had left her with another man, he and her mother

abandoned Delores and moved to California. At each move to

another male who would take care of her, Delores was mentally,

physically, and sexually abused. At age 15, she ended up with a

man who was 26. They had a child together, but were not

married. One day they had a fight. The Department was called

to take Dolores and the infant child into custody. At that

point, prior to placement with the Riches, Delores was moved

from foster home to foster home.

44. Delores was diagnosed with severe post-traumatic

stress disorder. She also was diagnosed with a drug and alcohol

problem. Drug and alcohol abuse is not uncommon for teenagers

with post-traumatic stress disorder and Delores' behavior was

out of control.

45. Delores was a chronic runaway. The Riches knew

Delores from a prior placement with another foster parent. They

were aware of her problems. At the time of transfer to the

Riches, Betsy Thomas, from the Department, told them that

Delores may or may not stay the whole night. Significantly,

Delores never ran away while in the care of the Riches.

46. The Departmen ts concerns as to Delores were that

Mr. Rich had rocked Delores in a rocking chair with her in his

lap, Petitioners placed her in a bed with them during an episode

in which she threatened suicide, had attempted to interfere in

her treatment, inappropriately kissed her in saying goodbye and

failed to disclose Delores' whereabouts to the Department when

she had run away.

47. Delores and J.J. were very close. They referred to

each other as sisters and shared a room. On one occasion, while

Mrs. Rich was cooking dinner, and Mr. Rich was rocking J.J.,

Delores was sitting on the couch and started making comments

such as "Well, I've never been rocked, my parents never rocked

me. They never did that for me, but we do it every day for

J.J., and sometimes rock J.J. more than once. But, you know,

you all are all the time rocking her, but I've never been

rocked."

48. At that time, Petitioners didn't know quite how to

respond to Delores' request to be rocked. Mr. Rich told Delores

that they would talk about it at another time. The next day she

mentioned it again. So in full view of Mrs. Rich, Mr. Rich

rocked Delores for no more than five minutes.

49. After that occurrence, Petitioners discussed the

rocking of Delores and decided that an afghan and/or small quilt

would be placed on Mr. Rich's lap between him and Delores.

Petitioners discussed the rocking with Jean Lenhert, Delores'

counselor. Ms. Lenhert agreed that it was the appropriate thing

to do for Delores. Delores had regressed emotionally to a

younger age, and she was seeking out affection from the people

she viewed as her parents.

50. The rocking of Delores occurred no more than a half a

dozen times. The rocking helped Delores. It calmed her down

and relaxed her. Mrs. Rich tried to rock Delores on one

occasion but it was to painful for her since she suffers from

arthritis and Delores weighed somewhere between 110 to 120

pounds. Under these circumstances, the Riches acted

appropriately in handling a situation which had arisen. The

Riches were aware that they did not want to encourage Delores to

seek affection in inappropriate ways as she had done prior to

becoming a foster child. Generally, maintenance of personal

space and appropriate and limited demonstrations of affection

are important for a child who has been sexually abused. These

factors are the reason they sought guidance on the matter from

Ms. Lehnert. Moreover, the Riches' judgment in this matter was

correct since it did indeed help Delores through a regressive

period. Given these circumstances, this incident does not

demonstrate that Petitioners are unable to develop appropriate

boundaries in a parent-child relationship.

51. Ms. Lehnert testified that she noticed a change in

Delores after she was placed with the Riches. Delores told

Ms. Lenhert that she felt like she had a home with the Riches.

Delores stayed at the Riches' home and quit running away.

Although she continued to use drugs and alcohol, it was not as

extreme a use as her use in the past. Delores was trying to get

off the drugs and alcohol.

52. The Riches participated in the therapy sessions when

they were asked. They would ask to speak with Ms. Lehnert to

let her know what Delores' behaviors had been that week. Such

involvement was appropriate. In fact, Ms. Lehnert asked all

parents, foster and biological to be so involved in a child's

treatment. Ms. Lehnert testified that Petitioners did

everything she asked of them. If they weren't sure of

something, they would always call her.

53. Ms. Lehnert testified that just being in Petitioners'

house brought Delores a sense of security and a comfort level.

When Delores was taken out of Petitioners' home, she ran away

and reverted to her old behavior. Delores never felt threatened

or that the Riches behaved inappropriately towards her. She

reported that she felt safe in their home.

54. Dolores testified that upon arriving at the Riches'

home, they went over the rules with her. At first, she tried to

break the rules to see what would happen. She stated that the

Riches always talked to her about how they felt when she broke

the rules. She said she later started following the rules

because she felt comfortable at the Riches; she knew they

wouldn't just kick her out because she broke a rule.

55. Significantly, Dolores testified that until she

arrived at the Riches' home, she never felt a sense of security

in any home. She stated that the Riches showed that they cared.

They cared about her going to counseling and getting help to get

her life together. She testified that in other homes she was

not cared about but just there for the money.

56. Dolores testified that the Riches treated her like a

member of their family. To this day she calls them mom and dad.

She considers them her real parents because they treat her like

their daughter.

57. Delores was very withdrawn and very untrusting when

she was first placed with Petitioners. After some time, she

became more trusting. Soon the Riches could count on Delores to

help around the house.

58. During her placement there was one occasion when

Delores was placed in the bed between Petitioners; it was

Thanksgiving weekend. Petitioners, Delores, and another foster

child visited Ms. Rich's parents outside Spanish Fort, Alabama.

After some time there, Petitioners noticed Delores appeared to

be stoned. Petitioners discovered that Delores had gotten into

Ms. Rich's mother's medicine cabinet. She had found an old

Valium prescription and had taken some of the pills. Delores

was caught trying to break into Ms. Rich's traveling case where

she kept her arthritis medication. She also had tried to get

into Ms. Rich's father's medication used for his heart

condition. Delores clearly needed some professional help.

59. Petitioners did not want to take Delores to an Alabama

hospital because they had learned from the MAPP class that you

should always avoid getting another Department involved if

necessary. Baptist Hospital in Pensacola was the closest

hospital known to the Riches, so they took Delores there. Upon

their arrival and assessment of Delores, the medical staff told

the Riches Delores did not meet the criteria to be Baker-acted.

She was sent home with the Riches.

60. Petitioners drove home and called Les Chambers and

Betsy Thomas two foster care counselors. Neither answered and

the Riches left messages on their answering machines.

61. Mr. Rich drove back to Spanish Fort to collect their

things and retrieve the other foster child whom they left with

Ms. Rich's sister, a special education teacher. The trip took

approximately 4 1/2 hours. When he returned, the other child

was put to bed.

62. Delores was manic. She was walking in circles.

Delores had told Ms. Rich that she knew how to commit suicide by

slicing her wrists. She said she would show Ms. Rich how it was

done, so Delores drew a streak with a pen from her wrist to her

elbow. Ms. Rich stated that prior to that, Delores' suicide

attempts had been scratches, laterally across her wrist. This

was the first time she showed the "correct" way to slice her

wrists in order to commit suicide. At some point, Delores

walked into the kitchen. Ms. Rich realized that Delores was

going to get a knife. Mrs. Rich ran to the kitchen and grabbed

Delores' wrist as she was grabbing for a knife. Petitioners

were very concerned and frightened that Delores would try to

kill herself. It was 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and they

were "dead on their feet." They had heard nothing from anybody,

and were at a complete loss as to what they should do. The

Riches feared they would fall asleep and Delores would kill

herself. They were afraid that if they put her to bed in

another room she would kill herself. These fears were

legitimate. The decision was made that the safest place for

Delores was in the bed between the Riches under the covers, with

Petitioners on top of the covers. Everyone was fully dressed.

Delores made it through the night.

63. Betsy Thomas called the following afternoon and told

them to tough it out. Mr. Chambers did not call until sometime

the following Sunday. Eventually, Delores was admitted to the

Baptist Adolescent Stress Unit at Baptist Hospital.

64. Upon being released from the Baptist Adolescent Stress

Unit, Petitioners picked Delores up. Mr. Rich picked up a

birthday cake for Delores because the Riches thought she would

be staying with them. Upon arriving home there was a message

from Les Chambers to deliver Delores straight to FIRS. There

was no reason given as to why Delores was being removed from

Petitioners' home.

65. Delores was next placed at Willow Edge's foster home.

Even though Delores was no longer in the care of Petitioners,

she continued to call them. She called Petitioners while at

Ms. Edges' and told them she stayed up all night doing drugs

with one of the other people in the home.

66. While Delores was at Ms. Edges' home a local mall held

a shopping spree for foster children on December 14, 1996.

Ms. Eastlack observed Ms. Rich create a scene with Delores and

her new foster mother. Ms. Rich was crying and attempting to

hug and talk to Delores; Delores was ignoring Ms. Rich. Delores

was angry about being placed in another foster home. Ms. Rich

shook her fist in the other foster mother's face, raising her

voice at the foster mother. Ms. Rich was chastising the foster

mother for permitting Delores to use drugs and stay up all night

at her house. Ms. Rich was upset by the reports Delores had

given the Riches of her activities at her new foster home, and

she was concerned for Delores. Ms. Rich eventually was

encouraged to leave by someone with Ms. Rich who tugged on her

arm to get her to leave. While this episode was an emotional

response, one such outburst does not reflect unduly on

Petitioners as potential adoptive parents. It does show how

much Ms. Rich cares about the children in her life.

67. After Ms. Edge's home, Delores was moved from several

different foster placements. Eventually, she was taken to

Lakeview Center and then to Meridian. Meridian is a long-term

residential psychiatric care facility for children and

adolescents typically between the ages of 8 to 18, to work on

their behavioral and emotional problems as well as substance

abuse issues. It is a voluntary, residential facility for

children. Stays are typically anywhere from three months to a

year.

68. Delores, stay ed at Meridian for approximately 20 days,

ran away, was returned, stayed another two weeks at maximum and

ran away again.

69. During the second time Delores ran away, the Riches

received a call from Delores telling them she had run away

because she couldn't stand Meridian anymore. She asked that

they not be mad at her. She made several telephonic contacts

with Petitioners. Petitioners were very concerned for Delores'

safety on the streets; they feared she would revert to her old

habits of trading sex for support. They encouraged her to

return to Meridian and offered to pick her up and return her to

Meridian. They stressed to her to stay clean and sober. At no

time, did Delores reveal her location to Petitioners. She knew

if she did Petitioners would tell the Department about her

location and she would be picked up. At one point, Delores was

desperate for money. Mr. Rich wrote Delores a letter enclosing

some money and a phone card. He mailed it to an address she had

stayed at. Delores did not tell Petitioners about this location

until after she had left. At the time the letter was mailed,

Mr. Rich did not know where Delores was and took a chance in the

hope that she would get the letter. The evidence did not

demonstrate that Petitioners withheld any information on the

whereabouts of Delores after she ran away from

Lakeview/Meridian. They did not know where she was.

70. Delores remained on her own for several weeks,

occassionally calling the Riches. She finally agreed to turn

herself in. Petitioners picked Delores up, took her to lunch,

bought her some clothes, since other than what she had on, she

had none. They then took her to Meridian.

71. The Riches met with Dr. Kimberly S. Haga. Dr. Haga,

Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist. She was employed at

Lakeview/Meridian from November 1, 1996 through January 28,

2000. Dr. Haga met with Petitioners during a two-hour meeting.

Mr. Rich thought the meeting lasted only about 45 minutes. From

the beginning, the meeting was hostile. Even though she did not

know the Riches and the history outlined here, the meeting

opened with Dr. Haga stating that the Riches had a very

dysfunctional family.

72. Although Delores was not placed with Petitioners at

the time they returned her to Meridian, the Riches asked to be a

part of her treatment. Petitioners knew they had formed a

relationship with Delores, and believed it would be to her

benefit if they participated. Moreover, Delores had requested

their participation. Whether or not Delores returned to their

home was unimportant; Petitioners wanted to see Delores get

appropriate treatment.

73. Dr. Haga thought Petitioners "insisted on being a part

of the treatment process" and "insisted upon dictating the terms

of treatment." Dr. Haga opined that such insistence by

Petitioners was inappropriate. However, Delores at the time and

date viewed Petitioners as her parents. Petitioners were the

only foster parents who did not have problems with Delores'

running away. Dr. Haga was also not privy to the numerous

conversations the Riches had with Delores about staying in

treatment. One statement out of context does not show the

Riches acted in a manner inappropriate for a parent-child

relationship or that inappropriate boundaries had been

established for Delores. Additionally, the Riches did not

encourage Delores to be overly dependant on them. At the end of

the meeting, Dr. Haga observed Mr. Rich embrace and kiss Delores

on the lips in saying goodbye. It was not a sexual kiss.

Delores did not interpret the kiss as anything other than saying

goodbye to her parent. Petitioners also told Delores that she

was welcome at home at any time. The Riches wanted Delores to

know that they cared, that she was not being abandoned, and that

she was welcome in their home when her treatment was complete.

In the doctor's opinion, Petitioners did not demonstrate

appropriate parenting skills. These opinions are not credited

given the surrounding facts of the incidences referenced.

74. Because Delores had taken another younger child with

her each time she had run away from Meridian, Delores was

eventually denied admission to Meridian upon her return. After

Meridian, Delores moved from foster home to foster home about

every two to three weeks. Throughout she kept in touch with the

Riches. Delores told Petitioners that she wanted to come home.

They explained to her that they had no standing, and that she

could not come back to their home until she was 18. At that

time she was legally old enough to make her own decision.

75. Petitioners received a phone cal l from Delores telling

them that the Department was putting her on a plane to

California to live with the parents who had abused and abandoned

her. She was 17 years old. While in California, Delores stayed

in contact with Petitioners; she quickly was back on the streets

engaging in her old behaviors. When Delores turned 18,

Petitioners, at Delores' request, sent her an Amtrack ticket to

Crestview, Florida. Delores returned to the Riches' home. She

has since married, become sober, and lives with her husband.

76. The last child placed with the Riches was R. She was

placed with the Riches before Delores left the Riches home.

R. was age six when she was placed with the Riches.

77. She was a part of a sibling group in Protective

Service care. R. had been sexually abused. R's knowledge of

anatomy and love was clearly inappropriate for her age. For

that reason, Petitioners followed very strict rules for her that

they had not really had to follow with J.J. They never

bathed R. or supervised her in the tub. Petitioners worked

closely with Donna Story and Chris Guy, R.'s therapists.

Mr. Rich testified that R. was such a needy child that they had

to have the professional guidance of Ms. Story and Ms. Guy

because what R. had been through was so devastating.

R. received therapy twice a week through Ms. Story, her

therapist at Bridgeway. Ms. Story would come to the Riches'

home once a week, and the Riches would take R. to a session once

a week. The Department had no concerns regarding this

placement.

78. Petitioners gave each child entering their home their

own flashlight immediately upon their arrival because they knew

they were entering a strange home. They wanted the children to

have a sense of security to be able to get up and find a

bathroom or simply find their way around the house in the night.

The first day of a child's placement, Petitioners let each child

settle in, showing them their rooms and the home. As time went

on, Petitioners went over the rules of the house. They sat each

child down and explained what was and was not expected of them.

A lot of the information for the rules came from the MAPP class

Petitioners had attended; the other rules were their personal

rules. Each child knew exactly what was expected of him or her ,

and knew what was appropriate and inappropriate behavior. The

Riches maintained an open-door policy with the Department and

made sure that every case worker knew that he or she was welcome

at any time.

79. Christine Guy holds a Master's degree in counseling

and psychology. As indicated earlier, Ms. Guy worked with the

Riches throughout the time they were foster parents. She

testified in favor of adoption by Petitioners. In 1994, the

first year Petitioners were foster parents, her initial opinion

about Petitioners as foster parents was not favorable to

Petitioners. She stated in a letter dated October 7, 1994, "I'm

unable to recommend that any additional foster children be

placed with the R.R.'s regardless of age, due to their need to

completely assimilate and their reluctance to work toward

reunification with the biological family." The letter was

prepared as a comment for the relicensure of the Riches as

foster parents. However, the issue of aiding in reunification

is not related to whether Petitioners would make good adoptive

parents.

80. Over the years, Ms. Guy visited Petitioners' home and

found it to be clean, well-maintained and appropriate. She also

knew them to establish rules for their foster children. She

knew some of the rules as they pertained to the children that

she was seeing that lived in their home, and found them to be

very appropriate. She witnessed them grow as foster parents.

She feels the Riches have acquired the skills necessary to be

good foster parents. As stated by Ms. Guy in her testimony,

"Having somebody that cares a whole lot is really hard to look

at as anything but positive." Indeed Ms. Guy feels Petitioners

would make good parents and good adoptive parents of a special

needs child .

81. Jeannie Lehnert has a Master's degree in counseling

and human development. She is a licensed and nationally

certified counselor. She also testified in favor of adoption by

Petitioners. Ms. Lehnert has been working with emotionally and

mentally handicapped children since 1993. She maintains a

private practice in Crestview and Fort Walton, and also teaches

for the Okaloosa-Walton Community College.

82. Ms. Lehnert has known Petitioners since late 1995.

She has observed their interaction with many of their foster

children. Ms. Lehnert thought the Riches were the best foster

parents in the county because they took a child into their home

and into their family. They took them with all their bad

behaviors and all their good behaviors.

83. Ms. Lehnert was familiar with the rules of Petitioners

for their foster children. She believed them to be strict as

far as a foster child following the rules. When working with

the Riches, Petitioners did everything Ms. Lehnert asked of

them; if she asked them to impose certain restrictions, they

would. She found Petitioners to be very open-minded to

treatment and care-taking suggestions. Ms. Lehnert witnessed

Petitioners' affections toward their foster children. She saw

them hug them, pat them on the back, tell them they did a great

job, and tell them that they cared about them. She found their

affections to be very appropriate. The Riches did not cause the

foster children in their care to become overly dependant on

them. They accepted each child unconditionally. Petitioners

did not favor one child over another child. They treated the

children according to their ages and gave them privileges

according to their ages; exactly the behavior a good parent

would do.

84. In fact, the evidence demonstrated that the Riches'

would make good adoptive parents. They have and had the skills

necessary to establish appropriate boundaries in a parent-child

relationship based on the needs of a particular child and had in

the past established such boundaries. Whether a particular

adoptive match can be found is left to the future. Petitioners'

application to become adoptive parents should be granted.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

85. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over this subject matter and the parties to this

action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

86. The Department has authority over dependent children,

including permanent placement or adoption of children in its

care. Section 409.145, Florida Statutes (1997). That law

states, in relevant part:

(1 ) The department shall conduct,

supervise, and administer a program for

dependent children and their families. The

services of the department are to be

directed toward the following goals:

* * *

(c ) The permanent placement of children who

cannot be reunited with their families or

when reunification would not be in the best

interest of the child.

* * *

(5 ) The department is authorized to accept

children on a permanent placement basis by

order of a court of competent jurisdiction

for the single purpose of adoption placement

of these children. The department is

authorized to provide the necessary services

to place these children ordered to the

department on a permanent placement basis

for adoption.

87. The Department also has authority over adoption of

special needs children. Section 409.166, Florida Statutes

(1997). That law states, in relevant part:

(2)(a) "Special needs child" means a child

whose permanent custody has been awarded to

the department or to a licensed child-

placing agency and

1. Who has established significant

emotional ties with his or her foster

parents; or

2. Is not likely to be adopted because he

or she is:

a. Eight years of age or older;

b. Mentally retarded ;

c. Physically or emotionally handicapped ;

e. A member of a sibling group of any age,

provided two or more members of a sibling

group remain together for purposes of

adoption.

(3)(a ) The department shall establish and

administer an adoption program for special

needs children to be carried out by the

department or by contract with a licensed

child-placing agency.

* * *

(3)(c ) The best interest of the child shall

be the deciding factor in every case.

(Emphasis added)

88. At the time of the instant application, the Department

had promulgated its rules regarding the recruitment, screening,

and application process for adoptive applicants at Rule

65C-16.004, Florida Administrative Code Rule. That rule

provides, in relevant part:

(2 ) Once an application is submitted by the

prospective adoptive parents to district

adoption staff, the priority must be to

prepare and study those applicants who

indicate a desire to adopt a special needs

child(ren) through the department.

89. Evaluation of applicants for adoption placement is

governed by Rule 65C-16.005, Florida Administrative Code. The

Rule requires an adoption home study and gives guidelines to

Department staff.

(2 ) A social study which involves careful

observation and evaluation is made of the

child and adoptive applicants prior to the

placing of a child in an adoptive home. The

study of the child and the adoption home

study, including the group of individual

preparation of the adoptive family, are a

part of this process.

(3 ) This section of the rule provides

guidelines to assist staff who are

responsible for making adoption placement

decisions. These guidelines cannot

substitute for the judgment of staff and

must be used in conjunction with a thorough

assessment of the adoptive environment.

(Emphasis added)

90. At the time of the instant applica tion, the Department

had issued its service manual in order to assist staff judgment

in evaluating adoptive applications. Department's Manual, HRS-M

175-16, 5-8. Section HRS-M 175-16, 5-8 concerns the evaluation

of capacity for parenthood.

91. The De partment's criteria used in the evaluation of

adoptive applicants for placement of a child are now promulgated

at Rule 65C-16.005, Florida Administrative Code. Although that

Rule concerns adoptive placements, it reiterates the criteria

for evaluation of adoptive applicants and the importance of

staff judgment in making adoptive placement decisions. The Rule

states:

(5 ) The criteria listed in this section

establish policy to assist staff in making

adoption placement decisions. These

criteria cannot substitute for the judgment

of staff and must be used in conjunction

with a thorough assessment of the adoptive

environment and the extent to which it can

best meet the individual needs of a child

and his or her sibling group.

(6 ) The best interest of the child is the

paramount concern in making an adoptive

placement decision. (Emphasis added)

92. The Rule also provides for review by the district

Adoptive Applicants Review Committee of all adoption applicant

rejections. Rule 65C-16.005(11)(a )3., Florida Administrative

Code.

93. In this case, the evidence does not support the

conclusion that the Riches' had problems forming appropriate

parent-child relationships with appropriate boundaries for a

special needs child. The Riches reasonably responded to several

serious situations with different children under their care.

They did not act inappropriately toward any of those children,

but always acted to protect them. The evidence demonstrates

that the Riches have appropriate parenting skills for a special

needs child and are very cognizant of the fact that a specific

child may require boundaries unique to that child's situation.

Therefore, the Riches' application to become adoptive parents

should be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the findings of fact and concl usions of law ,

it is

RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioners' application to become adoptive parents be

granted.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2001, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

DIANE CLEAVINGER

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 [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1st day of August , 2001.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Christopher P. Saxer, Esquire

Christopher P. Saxer, P.A.

126 Eglin Parkway, Northeast

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548-4917

Eric D. Schurger, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

160 Governmental Center, Suite 601

Pensacola, Florida 32501

Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk

Department of Children and

Family Services

Building 2, Room 204B

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Josie Tomayo, 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.