99-000225 Department Of Children And Family Services vs. Albert Walker And Estoria Walker Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, August 19, 1999.

Summary: Respondents` multiple instances of failure to comply with the rules of foster parenting justify the non-renewal of their foster care license.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILY SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-0225

)

ALBERT WALKER and ESTORIA WALKER, )

)

Respondents. )

__________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

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

by video teleconference on June 18, 1999, with the parties

appearing from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before J. D. Parrish, a

designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Deborah Guller, Esquire

Department of Children and Family Services

201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 502

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

For Respondent: Albert Walker and Estoria Walker, pro se

5311 Southwest 25th Street

Hollywood, Florida 33023

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Respondents are entitled to renewal of their

foster home license.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on December 17, 1998, when the Department of

Children and Family Services (Department or the Agency) issued a

notice to the Respondents, Albert and Estoria Walker, that their

license to provide foster care would not be renewed. By letter

dated January 6, 1999, the Respondents timely requested an

administrative hearing in the matter. The case was then

forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal

proceedings on January 14, 1999.

At the hearing conducted on June 18, 1999, the Department

presented testimony from the following witnesses: Andrea Segal,

a family services counselor employed by the Agency;

Monique Galbreath, a former re-licensing counselor who was

employed by the Agency; and Jennifer Mays Edwards, licensing

supervisor for foster parents for the Agency. The Department's

Exhibits numbered 1 through 11 were admitted into evidence. The

Respondents testified in their own behalf and offered the

testimony of their friend, Rosalie Jenkins. Respondent's

E xhibits N umbered 1 and 2 were also received in evidence.

The Transcript of the proceeding was filed with the Division

of Administrative Hearings on July 12, 1999. Petitioner's

P roposed R ecommended O rder was timely filed and has been

considered in the preparation of this order. The Respondents

have not filed a proposed order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Prior to the re-licensing at issue in this proceeding,

the Respondents were licensed foster care parents with whom the

Department placed minor children for care.

2. When their license came up for renewal in December 1998,

the Department informed the Respondents that their license would

not be renewed as they had not met the minimum standard for

foster parenting.

3. The Respondents have a history of minor incidents which,

taken as a whole, have suggested to the Department that they are

not able to provide the quality of care to foster children as

contemplated by the statute and rules governing foster care

providers.

4. More specifically, the Respondents have left minor

children ages four and nine in the care of developmentally

delayed adolescents. Respondents were not authorized to leave

the children with the adolescents nor did they provide meaningful

supervision for the young minors. The incident resulted in a

call to police who were summoned when the children called their

mother.

5. Respondent, Estoria Walker, has also used disparaging

comments to and in front of a minor child who was placed in her

care. In this instance, in front of the child's case worker,

Respondent complained to the child of the volume of food consumed

by the child. She sought additional funds to feed the child as

she felt the child's board rate was inadequate to cover the costs

of feeding her. Also, the Respondent complained about how the

child kept herself. These disparaging remarks to and in front of

the child did not contribute to a nurturing environment for the

child. The child was ultimately moved from Respondents' home as

she was miserable there, and the Respondents did not want her to

remain.

6. On another occasion the Respondents were caring for a

teenager who became pregnant. Respondents delegated the task of

informing the Department of the pregnancy to the teen. As foster

parents they assumed no responsibility for notifying the

caseworker of the situation. As a result, the caseworker for the

teen was not promptly advised of the pregnancy.

7. Respondents gave an adolescent in their care permission

to leave their home for an extended visit to the child's

relative. They did so without the caseworker's approval or

knowledge of the visit. They did so without following Department

guidelines for extended visits outside of the foster home.

8. Most of the complaints to the Department resulted from

the Respondents' failure to provide a loving, nurturing

environment for the foster children placed in their home.

Nevertheless, other incidents resulted from a claim of improper

discipline, including spanking. As to all of these complaints

the Department sought to work with the Respondents, to counsel

them for performance improvement, and to allow them to retain

children in their home despite serious reservations.

9. From as early as 1995, the Department received

complaints from the foster children in the Respondents' home that

they had been inappropriately disciplined with spanking. As a

result, Mrs. Walker was required to review and execute the

disciplinary policy to assure the Department that the Respondents

would not use physical discipline with the children. Despite

this reminder, additional complaints of physical discipline were

made against the Respondents.

10. When the time came for the Department's committee to

consider the renewal of Respondents' license, the entire

licensing file documenting all of the above-identified issues was

considered. Thereafter, the Department determined it would not

renew the license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

11. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of,

these proceedings.

12. Section 409.175, Florida Statutes, provides, in

pertinent part:

409.175 Licensure of family foster homes,

residential child-caring agencies, and child-

placing agencies.

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

protect the health, safety, and well-being of

all children in the state who are cared for

by family foster homes, residential child-

caring agencies, and child-placing agencies

by providing for the establishment of

licensing requirements for such homes and

agencies and providing procedures to

determine adherence to these requirements.

* * *

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

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

is issued to a family foster home or other

facility and is not a professional license of

any individual. Receipt of a license under

this section shall not create a property

right in the recipient. A license under this

act is a public trust and a privilege, and is

not an entitlement. This privilege must

guide the finder of fact or trier of law at

any administrative proceeding or court action

initiated by the department.

* * *

(4)(a) The department shall adopt and amend

licensing rules for family foster homes,

residential child-caring agencies, and child-

placing agencies. The department may also

adopt rules relating to the screening

requirements for summer day camps and summer

24-hour camps. The requirements for

licensure and operation of family foster

homes, residential child-caring agencies, and

child-placing agencies 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.

* * *

10. The provision for parental involvement

to encourage preservation and strengthening

of a child's relationship with the family.

* * *

(8)(a) The department may deny, suspend, or

revoke a license.

(b) Any of the following actions by a home

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.

2. A violation of the provisions of this

section or of licensing rules promulgated

pursuant to this section.

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

guidelines for persons substituting as parents in the caregiver's

role. Such provision requires foster home parents to give

physical and emotional support to a foster child without the

expectation of a demonstration of appreciation from the child.

Moreover, pursuant to the rule, foster home parents are to

provide a structured, secure, nurturing environment for the child

and to make a commitment to keep the child for a planned period

of time.

14. While Respondents successfully completed the training

for initial approval as foster care parents, they have

demonstrated a continuing failure to comply with Agency policies

and rules. The single incidents complained of in this case would

not necessarily justify the non-renewal of Respondents' foster

care license. Nevertheless, taken in whole, given the history of

the incidents and given the Agency's patience in working with

these parents to improve performance, the Respondents have not

demonstrated a meaningful understanding of the requirements for

foster care nor a sufficient level of improvement.

15. All parties concede that providing foster care is

demanding and stressful. Persons seeking to provide foster care

must be more than sincerely interested in the work. Foster care

parents must maintain the minimum skills to achieve standards set

forth by the Agency. Regrettably, while sincere in their

interest to be foster care parents, Respondents have not provided

sufficient support and a consistently acceptable environment for

the demanding population they seek to serve.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family

Services enter a final order denying Respondents' request for

license renewal as foster care parents.

DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1999, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

J. D. PARRISH

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 19th day of August, 1999.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Deborah Guller, Esquire

Department of Children and

Family Services

201 West Broward Boulevard

Suite 502

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Albert and Estoria Walker

5311 Southwest 25th Street

Hollywood, Florida 33023

Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk

Department of Children and

Family Services

Building 2, Room 204B

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

John S. Slye, General Counsel

Department of Children and

Family Services

Building 2, Room 204B

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.