11-1800-16439-2

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF HUMAN SERVICES

 

In the Matter of the Denial of the Child Foster Care Application of Richard and Philistine Lee

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

         

The above matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Neilson on April 26, 2005, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The record closed on May 31, 2005. 

Rebecca S. Morrisette, Assistant County Attorney, 525 Portland Avenue South, 12^th Floor, Minneapolis, MN  55415, appeared on behalf of Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Richard and Philistine Lee, 2755 Aldrich Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN  55408, appeared on their own behalf without counsel. 

NOTICE

 

This report is a recommendation, not a final decision.  The Commissioner of Human Services will make the final decision after a review of the record.  The Commissioner may adopt, reject or modify the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendations.  Under Minn. Stat. § 14.61, the final decision of the Commissioner shall not be made until this Report has been made available to the parties to the proceeding for at least ten days.  An opportunity must be afforded to each party adversely affected by this Report to file exceptions and present argument to the Commissioner.  Parties should contact Kevin Goodno, Commissioner, Department of Human Services, 444 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN  55155, to learn the procedure for filing exceptions or presenting argument.

 

If the Commissioner fails to issue a final decision within 90 days of the close of the record, this report will constitute the final agency decision under Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 2a.  The record closes upon the filing of exceptions to the report and the presentation of argument to the Commissioner, or upon the expiration of the deadline for doing so.  The Commissioner must notify the parties and the Administrative Law Judge of the date on which the record closes.

 

Under Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1, the agency is required to serve its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first class mail or as otherwise provided by law.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

 

1.               Did the Applicants, Richard and Philistine Lee, fail to complete a chemical dependency assessment required by Hennepin County as part of their application for foster care licensure?

2.               Did the Applicants fail to fully disclose all necessary background information to the County in connection with their foster care license application?

3.               If so, did the Department properly deny the Applicants’ foster care license application because denial is necessary to protect the health and safety of children receiving services?

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Applicants did not complete a chemical dependency assessment that was reasonably required by Hennepin County andfailed to fully disclose their history of domestic abuse incidents or Minneapolis Police calls to their home involving domestic disputes, threats, and/or the use of alcohol or drugsin connection with their application.  As a result, the Department properly denied their application for a family foster care license.

Based upon all of the proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.              The Applicants, Richard and Philistine Lee, have been married since 1994.  Mr. Lee has no children, and Ms. Lee has two adult children from a previous relationship.[1]  

2.              The Applicants applied for and received an Emergency Foster Care License on March 4, 2004 (effective February 14, 2003), in order to provide foster care for their three grandchildren.  The emergency license expired on June 3, 2004.  The grandchildren, whose current ages are 7, 9, and 10, were placed with the Applicants by order of the Hennepin County Juvenile Court on or about February 14, 2004, and have resided with the Applicants continuously since their placement date.  The Applicants did not hesitate to take their grandchildren into their home when foster care was needed for them.  The three grandchildren spent most weekends with them for several years, and have lived in their home in the past when their parents lived with the Applicants.  There are no other children in their home at the present time.[2]

3.              Emergency licenses provide for the immediate placement of children with relatives in homes that meet minimal standards for child placement as defined by statute.  The issuance of an emergency license allows time for referral to the foster care licensing process.[3]  The current proceeding involves the Applicants’ application for a foster care license and not their emergency license.

          4.       Each of the Applicants completed and signed a Foster Care Licensing Questionnaire on January 24, 2004.[4]  In the Background Information section of the form, applicants are asked:  “Regardless of how long ago, have you or any household member experienced any of the following” and are asked to check “yes” or “no” regarding a list of items, including physical health problems; mental health problems and/or treatment; drug or alcohol abuse and/or treatment; any city, county, and/or state services program including child or adult protective services; domestic abuse; counseling, individual, and/or others; or treatment or hospitalization for any of these issues.  The form also asks applicants “Regardless of how long ago, regardless of where you were living, have you or any household member . . . Been ticketed and/or arrested by any law enforcement officer?  Been charged and/or convicted with any offense even if dismissed?  . . .  Been involved in an assault whether or not legal charges were brought?  . . .  Been involved with any local, state, or other countries’ federal law enforcement departments?  . . . “[5]  Ms. Lee checked “no” in response to all of these questions.[6]  Mr. Lee checked “no” in response to all but one question.  He checked “yes” in response to the question asking whether he or any household member had been ticketed and/or arrested by any law enforcement officer.  As explanation for this answer, he indicated that he had received one speeding ticket in the 1970’s and had lost his license from not paying the fine.[7] 

5.       As part of the required background check during the foster care licensing process, the County obtained releases from the Applicants and thereafter requested police reports relating to the Applicants and the addresses at which they lived.[8]  The police records obtained by the County show that Richard Lee was arrested for fifth degree domestic assault in March and September of 1992 and June and July of 1995, and for disorderly conduct in July of 1992.[9]  The police records show that Philistine Lee was arrested for fifth degree domestic assault in July of 1992 and June of 1995.[10]  Police calls were also made to the Applicants’ residence for domestic assault by Ms. Lee’s son in May of 1994 and April of 1998.[11]  During the May 1994 incident, Ms. Lee’s son stabbed Mr. Lee.  In addition, search warrants were executed for crack cocaine in October of 1997 and July of 1999,[12] and the police were called with respect to Ms. Lee’s adult son’s suicide attempt in May of 1998.[13]  A summary of these police reports is provided below.

a.       The police report for the March 12, 1992, incident indicates that Ms. Lee’s[14] 14-year-old niece called police to report that Ms. Lee’s boyfriend (Richard Lee) was beating Ms. Lee up and cut her eye.  Ms. Lee told police that Mr. Lee had hit her.  Mr. Lee’s appearance was noted to be “drunk/“drugged.”  The police report stated that Mr. Lee had punched Ms. Lee in the facial area with his fist, but the police could not find any signs of physical harm and Ms. Lee refused an ambulance.  Mr. Lee was placed under arrest, transported to the Hennepin County Jail and booked for fifth degree domestic assault.[15] 

b.       The police report for the July 17, 1992, incident indicates that police responding to another call in the Lees’ building were told by Mr. Lee’s cousin that Mr. Lee was out of control.  The police advised Mr. Lee to stop his disruptive behavior and proceeded to the original call.  When Mr. Lee continued to engage in a loud verbal argument with Ms. Lee, both Ms. Lee and Mr. Lee’s cousin asked police to take Mr. Lee to Detox or jail because they did not believe that he would settle down.  Ms. Lee told the officers that Mr. Lee had drank half a bottle of brandy, and the police report noted that Mr. Lee’s appearance was “drunk/drugged.”  Mr. Lee was eventually placed under arrest for disorderly conduct and transported to jail, where he was booked.[16] 

c.               The police report relating to the July 31, 1992, incident indicates that Ms. Lee’s 16-year-old son called police and reported that Ms. Lee had locked him out of the apartment.  Ms. Lee told police that she was sick of her son coming home late and something had to be done about it.  Ms. Lee’s appearance was noted as “drunk/drugged” and her speech “slurred.”  Ms. Lee left the apartment, and her son then told police that she had chased him with a kitchen knife when he kept yelling at her to open the door.  The police located Ms. Lee and placed her under arrest, took her to jail, and booked her for fifth degree domestic assault.[17]

d.               The police report for the September 2, 1992, incident indicates that Ms. Lee reported that Mr. Lee had threatened Ms. Lee’s son (then 16 years old) with a knife.  When she attempted to take the knife away, Ms. Lee was cut on the hand.  Mr. Lee left the home, but later returned, made threats, and left.  Ms. Lee indicated that she had observed Mr. Lee walking toward the apartment with what appeared to be a gun in his hand.  Mr. Lee was taken to jail and booked for fifth degree domestic assault.  There is no mention in the report of whether Mr. Lee in fact was found to be in possession of a gun.  The report lists “drugs/alcohol” as a “crime element.”[18]

e.               The police report relating to the May 31, 1994, incident indicates that Ms. Lee’s son, then 18 years old, stabbed Mr. Lee in the back.  Ms. Lee and her son reported differing versions of what occurred.  The police report stated that everyone in the apartment at the time was very intoxicated.  Mr. Lee was taken to the hospital, and Ms. Lee’s son was transported to jail and booked for third degree domestic assault.  When contacted the next day, Ms. Lee indicated that Mr. Lee had slapped her, and her son and Mr. Lee began fighting.  She indicated that she and Mr. Lee had been fighting like this for years.  Mr. Lee informed the police the next day that he did not want Ms. Lee’s son prosecuted but wanted him released.  Ms. Lee’s son was thereafter released for lack of prosecution by the victim.[19]

f.                 The police report relating to the June 10, 1995, incident indicates that officers called to a domestic dispute witnessed Ms. Lee threaten to kill Mr. Lee.  The Lees’ address at that time was 3022 Grand Avenue South, upper unit.  Ms. Lee told them that Mr. Lee had thrown her down the stairs, but the officers did not observe any signs of injury.  Both Mr. Lee and Ms. Lee were booked for fifth degree domestic assault and transported to jail.  Both Ms. Lee and Mr. Lee were reported to have “drunk/drugged” appearances and slurred speech, and the type of drugs noted to be involved were crack cocaine and alcohol.[20]

g.               The police report relating to the July 8, 1995, incident states that Ms. Lee reported that she and Mr. Lee had gotten into a verbal argument and Mr. Lee began swinging his arms at her.  When Ms. Lee attempted to call 911, she reported that Mr. Lee yanked the phone out of the wall, and Ms. Lee hit Mr. Lee over the head with a glass coffee pot.  The police report noted that Mr. Lee appeared to be “drunk/drugged.”  Mr. Lee was taken to jail and booked for fifth degree domestic assault.[21]

h.               On October 10, 1997, a search warrant was executed at 3022 Grand Avenue South, Minneapolis, where the Lees lived at the time.  The police report relating to the search indicates that an anonymous caller had previously reported that crack cocaine was being kept and sold at the duplex where the Lees lived.  The caller stated that the same family occupied the upper and lower units in the duplex and both were involved in the drug activity.  The police also had received complaints from neighborhood residents about the large amount of foot traffic around the residence.  After observation and use of a confidential informant to make a controlled buy, a man was arrested.  The man, whose name was Emmanuel Lawson, said that “his father’s people” lived at 3022 Grand Avenue South (up and down) where he had been visiting.  After the police continued to receive complaints about the activity at this address and a report that the residents of this address had threatened the neighbors and were involved in selling crack cocaine both at their address and on the front steps of neighboring buildings, another informant was used to conduct a controlled buy of one rock of suspected crack cocaine from an individual who was in the upper unit.  The police then obtained a search warrant “for this address” that was executed on October 10, 1997.  The police report identifies both Applicants and Ms. Lee’s son as “suspects.”  The report indicates that the search of the upper unit revealed plastic wrapping and small pieces of Brillo pad “often found where crack cocaine is smoked,” as well as a handgun and several credit cards in the names of unknown persons not occupying the unit.[22] 

i.                 The police reports indicate that another police call was made to 3022 Grand Avenue South, Minneapolis, on April 26, 1998.  Neither Mr. Lee nor Ms. Lee was named in the report.  It appears that Ms. Lee’s son, by then age 22, was charged with fifth degree domestic assault.  No details were provided regarding this incident.[23] 

j.                 A police report dated May 5, 1998, indicates that Ms. Lee’s 22-year-old son was depressed and attempted suicide.[24]

k.               A police report dated July 2, 1999, indicates that a search warrant was executed at 3022 Grand Avenue South, Apartment 2, Minneapolis, and Ms. Lee’s son and another individual were cited for “disorderly house” and released.[25] 

          6.       During a February 4, 2004, interview with the County Kinship worker, the Applicants were asked about police reports that had been obtained by the County on January 29, 2004.  The Applicants said that they had just moved to Minnesota from Chicago in 1992 and were under a lot of stress because they did not have jobs or money.  They also took in various relatives during 1992-95.  They said that they did a lot of arguing at the time, but things have been much better during the past eight or nine years.  Because several of the police reports mentioned that one or both of the Applicants looked drunk or drugged when the police observed them, the Applicants were also asked during the February 4 interview about their use of alcohol or drugs.  Ms. Lee indicated that she and Mr. Lee together consumed half a case of beer over a weekend, or about three beers apiece on both Friday and Saturday nights.  During a separate interview with Mr. Lee, he stated that he drinks a pint or half a pint of cognac on weekend evenings.  The Applicants denied that they drank during the week and denied drinking to intoxication.  They also stated that neither of them had ever been drug users.[26]

7.       The Applicants both completed and signed Individual Fact Sheets on February 7, 2004.[27]  The Individual Fact Sheet asks, “Regardless of how long ago, have you or your family members, including children, experienced any of the following problems” and is followed by a checklist that includes mental health problems and/or treatment, drug or alcohol abuse and/or treatment, domestic abuse, domestic violence, individual or family or group counseling, treatment or hospitalization, and whether the applicant or a family member has been “charged, and/or adjudicated, with any offense, even if dismissed.”  Ms. Lee checked “yes” to domestic violence, individual or other counseling, and treatment or hospitalization, but “no” to the rest of the items.  She explained that one of her grandchildren tried to commit suicide when he was staying with his mother in December and had to go to counseling, as did the other children due to abuse by their mother.  Ms. Lee also indicated that she and Mr. Lee used to fight when they first moved to Minneapolis due to the fact that they were unemployed and lacked money, until an officer told them about places they could find work.  The Individual Fact Sheet also asks, “Regardless of how long ago, regardless of where you were living, have you . . .  Been ticketed and/or arrested by any law enforcement officer?  Been charged and/or convicted with any offense even if dismissed?  Been involved in an assault whether or not legal charges were brought? . . .”  Ms. Lee checked “yes” to the question relating to whether she had ever been ticketed and/or arrested by any law enforcement officer, but otherwise checked “no.”  She explained that the ticketing or arrest had occurred nine years earlier for domestic violence, because they had just moved to the state, couldn’t find a job right away, lacked money, and experienced stress.  She indicated that she “took it out on” Mr. Lee until “everything got right.”[28]  Mr. Lee checked “no” to all of these questions.[29]

8.       The Applicants’ application for a foster care license was assigned to Lisa Cavanagh, a licensing social worker with Hennepin County, on March 5, 2004.[30]

9.       Ms. Cavanagh met with the Applicants on April 15, 2004, and May 29, 2004.  On both occasions, she discussed the prohibition against using physical discipline with children in placement, and Mr. Lee made clear his disagreement with this policy.  Although Mr. Lee signed a Discipline Rule Agreement, he implied that he does use physical discipline with the children and will continue to do so.  As a relative of the children, he implied that he reserves the right to discipline them as he sees fit.  When Ms. Cavanagh warned Mr. Lee that he could lose his ability to be licensed if there were reports of him using physical discipline, he became angry about this discussion and slammed the door.  Ms. Lee told Ms. Cavanagh that she should ignore Mr. Lee’s reaction as he had been “sipping” and that he “gets like that” when he has been “sipping.”  Ms. Cavanagh decided to complete her interview with Mr. Lee at a later date.[31] 

10.     In an e-mail to the placing worker and other County employees dated June 2, 2004, Ms. Cavanagh identified several concerns relating to licensure of the Applicants.  Her concerns included the fact that both Mr. and Ms. Lee were gone at work 12 hours per day five days per week, and Mr. Lee’s brother, James, provided supervision and care of the children in an unlicensed facility during their absence.  In addition, she raised concerns about the incidents of domestic abuse between 1992 and 1995 involving drugs, alcohol, and weapons (a knife and a gun).  She also raised concerns about Mr. Lee’s ability to comply with discipline rules and the current usage of alcohol by the Lees.  She indicated that, in accordance with her supervisor’s recommendation, she was going to inform the Applicants on June 3, 2005, that they would both be requested to complete a “Rule 25” (chemical dependency) assessment.[32]

11.     Ms. Cavanagh made further visits to the Applicants’ home on June 5 and June 7, 2004.[33]

12.      By letter to each Applicant dated July 1, 2004, the County requested that each of the Applicants complete a Rule 25 Chemical Health Assessment due to “significant acts of violence in your history that involved chemicals as well as continued significant use of alcohol.”  The letters informed the Applicants of the options of either scheduling an appointment for an assessment or simply walking in for an assessment, and invited the Applicants to call Ms. Cavanagh if they had any questions regarding the process or the reasons for the required assessment.[34]

13.      After Ms. Lee received the July 1, 2004, letter, requesting the chemical dependency assessment, she called Ron Wetzell, Foster Care Unit Supervisor for the Hennepin County Human Services Department, to complain that Ms. Cavanagh did not have sufficient reason to make such a request.  She told Mr. Wetzell that she had consulted with an attorney, who had advised her that she did not need to submit to the evaluation.  The cost of the evaluation came up during the conversation, and Mr. Wetzel told Ms. Lee that the Applicants should check with their insurance carrier to see if there was coverage.  If there was no insurance or no coverage, he told her that they could go to the County Facility located at 1800 Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis.  Mr. Wetzel told Ms. Lee that he did not expect that there would be any cost to the Applicants in such a circumstance, but he would check further and let her know.[35] 

14.      By letter dated July 8, 2004, Mr. Wetzell followed up in writing regarding conversations he had with Ms. Lee on July 7, 2004.  With respect to Ms. Lee’s question concerning whether or not there would be any cost to the Applicants for a Rule 25 assessment at the County facility, Mr. Wetzell indicated that, “provided you do not have any insurance coverage for yourself, any Rule 25 assessment conducted for you at this facility would not include any cost to you.”[36]  The County never received any indication that this letter was not received by the Applicants.[37]

          15.     Although one or both of the Applicantsmay have presented themselves as a walk-in at the County Facility to obtain the Rule 25 evaluation at some point, there is no evidence that either of the Applicants has ever completed a Rule 25 assessment.[38]

          16.     On October 28, 2004, the Hennepin County Human Services Department recommended that the State Department of Human Services deny the license of the Applicants to provide child foster care.  The County’s recommendation was based upon the Applicants’ “failure to comply fully with licensing laws and rules,” the Applicants’ “failure to fully disclose their history of alcohol related domestic abuse incidents,” the Applicants’ “failure to cooperate with the [County’s] request to evaluate their abilities to provide a safe environment for foster children,” and the Applicants’ “failure, given their history and current behavior, to be able to demonstrate the abilities required under the license-holder qualifications set forth in Minnesota Rule 2960.”[39]

          17.     On December 16, 2004, the Department of Human Services denied the Applicants’ application for a license to provide child foster care.  In the Order of Denial, the Department alleged that the Applicants did not fully disclose on the Child Foster Care Licensing Questionnaires and Individual Fact Sheets their extensive history of domestic abuse incidents that were often alcohol/drug related or the Minneapolis police calls to their home involving domestic altercations and threats of violence.  In addition, the Department asserted that the Applicants did not disclose that, in both October 1997 and July 1999, search warrants were executed on their home by the Minneapolis Police Department to search for crack cocaine.  The Department noted that the 1997 search warrant was executed after an officer observed crack cocaine being sold from the Applicants’ home.  The Department also noted that Mr. Lee had become angry and slammed a door while walking out of the room after discussing the discipline rule for foster care children, and Ms. Lee’s comment that Mr. Lee “gets this way when he has been sipping.”  The Department emphasized that neither of the Applicants had completed the Rule 25 assessment requested by the County.  As a result, the Department denied the Applicants’ application to provide child foster care based on the Applicants’ failure to complete the Rule 25 assessment, failure to fully disclose all necessary information to the County, and in order to protect the health and safety of children receiving services in DHS licensed programs.  The letter notified the Applicants of their right to appeal the decision and request a contested case hearing.[40]

18.     On or about December 28, 2005, the Department of Human Services received the Applicants’ timely appeal of the Department’s decision to deny their license application.[41] 

19.          The County completed its Adoptive/Foster Parent Study with respect to the Applicants in early April of 2005.  The study indicates that the Applicants both denied during interviews that they are currently physical with each other when they become angry.  The study further indicates that Mr. Lee estimated his alcohol consumption to be one “fifth” per week, one to two shots of cognac per day, two to three beers per day on the weekdays, and about a six-pack of beer per day on the weekends.  The study noted that the foster care licensing application was denied, cross-referencing the legal file.[42]

20.          A Protective Order was entered in this matter on March 25, 2005, that, among other things, restricted the use of not public data encompassed by the Order to this proceeding and specified that it was not to be used for any other purpose unless otherwise ordered by a Court. 

 Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS

1.              The Commissioner of Human Services and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction in this matter under Minn. Stat. §§ 14.50 and 245A.08.

2.              The Department of Human Services gave proper and timely notice of the hearing in this matter.

3.              The Department and Hennepin County have complied with all procedural requirements of law and rule.

4.              The burden of proof in this matter is on the Applicants to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they have complied fully with Chapter 245A of the Minnesota Statutes and other applicable law or rule and that the application should be approved and the license granted.[43]

5.               Before issuing a foster care license, the Commissioner is required to evaluate information gathered as part of the application process, including the results of the background study on the applicant, and “consider facts, conditions, or circumstances concerning the program’s operation, the well-being of persons served by the program, available consumer evaluations of the program, and information about the qualifications of the personnel employed by the applicant . . . .”[44]

6.              The Commissioner of Human Services “may deny a license if an applicant fails to comply with applicable laws or rules, or knowingly withholds relevant information from or gives false or misleading information to the [C]ommissioner in connection with an application for a license or during an investigation.”[45] 

7.               The rules governing family foster care specify that “[o]ne of the goals of foster care must be that the foster child will experience a safe and healthy family life.  The license holder must also promote the child’s development as a physically and mentally healthy person.”[46]

8.               The family foster care rules state that the Commissioner “shall deny a license if the applicant fails to fully comply with laws or rules governing the program or fails to cooperate with a placing or licensing agency.”  The rules go on to state that failure to fully comply shall be indicated by “documentation of specific foster home deficiencies that may endanger the health or safety of children” or “any other evidence that the applicant is not in compliance with applicable laws or rules governing the program.”[47]

9.               The rules governing family foster care authorize the licensing agency to “consult with a specialist in such areas as health, mental health, or chemical dependency to evaluate the abilities of the applicant to provide a safe environment for foster children.”  The rules state that the licensing agency must tell the applicant why it is using a specialist to evaluate the applicant, the licensing agency must obtain a release of information from the applicant prior to assigning the specialist, and the licensing agency and the specialist must evaluate each applicant individually.[48]

10.           The family foster care rules specify that an applicant “must cooperate with a home study conducted by the licensing agency” and must demonstrate the ability to “work within agency and state policies;” “deal with anger, sorrow, frustration, conflict, and other emotions in a manner that will build positive interpersonal relationships rather than in a way that could be emotionally or physically destructive to other persons;” and “nurture children, be mature and demonstrate an ability to comply with the foster child’s care plan, and meet the needs of foster children in the applicant’s care.”[49]

11.           The Applicants did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they have complied fully with Chapter 245A of the Minnesota Statutes and other applicable law or rule and that the application should be approved and the license granted.  To the contrary, the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Applicants did not complete a chemical dependency assessment that was reasonably required by Hennepin County despite being told that there would be no cost incurred by them in connection with the evaluation, and failed to fully disclose in connection with their application their history of domestic abuse incidents or Minneapolis Police calls to their home involving domestic disputes, threats, and/or the use of alcohol or drugs.  As a result, the Department properly denied their application for a family foster care license.

12.           These Conclusions are reached for the reasons discussed in the Memorandum below, which is hereby incorporated in these Conclusions by reference.

          Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:  That the Commissioner’s order denying the foster care license application of Richard and Philistine Lee be affirmed, and that the Protective Order shall remain in effect.

Dated:  June 8, 2005.

 

 

s/Barbara L. Neilson

BARBARA L. NEILSON

Administrative Law Judge

Reported: Tape-recorded (three tapes).

 

MEMORANDUM

 

There is no dispute that the Applicants have many strengths to recommend them as foster parents, including their longstanding relationship with their grandchildren, their interest in providing a home for the children, their steady employment at the same business location since 1994, and the Court’s placement of the children in their home more than one year ago.  However, the Applicants have not borne their burden to show that they have complied fully with Chapter 245A of the Minnesota Statutes and other applicable law or rule and that their foster care license application should be approved. 

 

First, the Applicants’ responses to questions posed on the foster care application forms and during the interview process were inaccurate and misleading in light of the police reports uncovered as a result of the background study.  Those police reports showed that Mr. Lee was arrested on one occasion (in 1992) for disorderly conduct and on four occasions (during 1992 and 1995) for fifth degree domestic assault.  In addition, the police reports show that Ms. Lee was arrested for fifth degree domestic assault on two occasions (in 1992 and 1995).  Police calls were also made to the Applicants’ residence for third and fifth degree domestic assault by Ms. Lee’s son in 1994 and 1998.  During the May 1994 incident, Ms. Lee’s son stabbed Mr. Lee.  In addition, search warrants were executed for crack cocaine in 1997 and 1999, and the police were called with respect to Ms. Lee’s adult son’s suicide attempt in 1998.  Despite the numerous domestic abuse incidents and arrests reflected in the police reports, Ms. Lee responded “no” to all of the items on her January 24, 2004, Foster Care Licensing Questionnaire and Mr. Lee merely disclosed on his January 24, 2004, Foster Care Licensing Questionnaire that he had one ticket for speeding and a driver’s license revocation for failure to pay the ticket. 

 

Even though the incidents other than the 1999 search occurred more than seven years ago and thus would not automatically disqualify the Applicants from licensure, the types of incidents reported still are significant concerns for foster care licensing.  Because the Foster Care Licensing Questionnaire and the Individual Fact Sheet asked for the submission of pertinent information relating to the applicant and household members “regardless of how long ago” the incident occurred, the Applicants could not reasonably have believed they only should provide information about incidents occurring within the past seven years.[50]  Although Ms. Lee gave a little more information to the Kinship worker about some incidents of domestic violence during their February 4 interview (see Ex. 5) and provided some minimal information concerning domestic incidents on the Individual Fact Sheet she completed on February 9, it is evident that this information was forthcoming only after the County worker asked the Applicants specific questions about the actual police reports that were received by the County on January 29.  Moreover, Ms. Lee’s additional responses did not fully disclose the nature of the incidents, explain the circumstances, mention resulting injuries, specify whether children were involved, disclose whether chemical use was involved, or give details regarding arrests.  Finally, even after being questioned by the County worker about the police reports on February 4, Mr. Lee continued to check “no” in response to all of the items included on the Individual Fact Sheet he completed on February 7, 2004.

 

It is very important that foster care applicants and licensees cooperate with the licensing agency, make reports for the benefit of the children in their care, and provide complete and not merely minimal disclosures.  The Applicants’ failure to respond truthfully during the licensing process leads to questions about whether they will keep the County informed about other events of significance that may occur after licensure.  Information relating to the search warrants executed at the Applicants’ residence also should have been disclosed even if the Applicants themselves were not arrested.  It is important that foster parents provide a safe sanctuary for children in their home, and foster parents must be held responsible for what occurs in their home even if they themselves are not charged with the infractions.

 

Second, the Applicants failed to complete the chemical dependency evaluations requested by the County.  As a threshold matter, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that it was reasonable for the County to request the chemical dependency evaluations, since alcohol and/or drugs apparently were involved in several of the incidents reflected in the police reports and the Applicants admitted during the foster care licensing process that they continued to use alcohol to a significant degree.  The County’s belief that it needed more information concerning chemical use in order to assess the Applicants’ suitability for a foster care license and its request for the Applicants to undergo a chemical dependency evaluation was reasonable under the circumstances.  Even though nearly one year has passed since the request was made, the Applicants unfortunately still have not completed a chemical dependency evaluation.  The Applicants’ contention that they did not have the evaluation because they were not aware that the County would pay for the evaluation is not credible in light of the July 8, 2004 letter sent to them by Mr. Wetzell (which was not returned to the County), Mr. Wetzell’s earlier conversation with Ms. Lee about payment, and the Applicants’ admission that they did in fact attempt to appear for a “walk-in” appointment on one or more occasions. 

 

Based upon the Applicants’ lack of full disclosure of background information during the licensing process and their failure to obtain chemical dependency assessments required by the County, there are serious and significant concerns that justify a denial of the license application.  Because the removal of children from their biological parents involves significant trauma for the children, the licensing agency must be certain to the greatest extent possible that the children are placed in a safe, healthy foster environment to compensate for the losses they have experienced.  Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge has recommended that the Commissioner’s denial of the foster care license be affirmed.  

 

B.L.N.