R 400.12324 Reevaluation.
(2) The annual reevaluation shall include a determination and assessment of all of the following:
(a) All changes to the factual information contained in the initial evaluation and subsequent renewal evaluations.
ANALYSIS: It appears that the reports for Foster Home C are not being updated to reflect accurate information. The relocation study for Foster Home C says that they have no pets. The previous renewal reevaluation says that they have 2 dogs, a fish and 2 geckos. The relocation reevaluation does not mention the changes in the number of pets. There was inconsistent reporting of the foster parent’s income. In the narrative
paragraphs of the income section of the reevaluation reports, it says that the foster father in Foster Home C is employed at BRD construction and has a net income of $2800.00 per month.
However, the lists of income and expenses all say that he is receiving this amount as unemployment. The 2012 renewal reevaluation says he is receiving unemployment.
CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED
APPLICABLE RULE
R 400.12324 Reevaluation.
(2) The annual reevaluation shall include a determination and assessment of all of the following:
(c) Training needs of the family.
ANALYSIS: The agency has not addressed the fact that for three years they have required Foster Home C to complete 2 hours of training on rights, role, and responsibilities of foster parents and Foster Home C has not completed the training.
The agency has not addressed the fact that for two years they have required Foster Home D to complete 2 hours of training on rights, role and responsibilities of foster parents and Foster Home D has not completed the training.
The agency has not addressed the fact that for three years they have required Foster Home E to complete 2 hours of training on rights, role and responsibilities of foster parents and Foster Home E has not completed the training.
CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED
APPLICABLE RULE
R 400.12325 License recommendation.
(1) An agency shall recommend to the department the
appropriate licensing action consistent with facts contained in the foster home evaluation and any special evaluations.
ANALYSIS: Since 2012, the agency completed six special evaluations on Foster Parent A. Foster Parent A was found to be in non- compliance of licensing rules and provided with CAPs for four of the special evaluations. The 05/08/2012 special evaluation was concerning allegations of inappropriate sexual contact among children that were in the home due to Foster Parent A’s substitute caregiver’s lack of supervision of the children. In addition, Foster Parent A failed to report the allegations to CPS.
The 08/25/2013 special evaluation was concerning Foster Parent A using physical discipline violating the agency’s discipline policy. The 08/21/2014 special evaluation was concerning allegations of inappropriate sexual contact among the children in the home due to Foster Parent A’s lack of supervision as well as Foster Parent A’s substitute caregiver’s lack of supervision. Again, Foster Parent A failed to report the allegations to CPS.
The third special evaluation should have prompted the agency to recommend that disciplinary action be issued to Foster Parent A. The three special evaluations demonstrated Foster Parent A’s substantial noncompliance of foster home licensing rules which could have jeopardized the health, safety, and care of the children placed in her home.
The fourth special evaluation, which occurred on12/19/2014, further shows Foster Parent A’s continuous lack of judgment and inappropriate decision making skills when caring for children placed in her home.
A special evaluation for Foster Home B was completed on 06/01/2015. The agency failed to use the findings of this
investigation to make the correct recommendation, which should have been disciplinary action of her foster home license.
Children were put at risk while placed with Foster Home B.
They were left with a 13 year old caregiver. The foster mother was shop lifting with the foster children and the stolen item was hidden under a diaper bag. Her driver’s license was suspended, yet she was still driving. A foster child went without proper linens for a year. The foster parent demonstrated both willful and substantial non-compliance of foster home licensing rules which could have jeopardized the health, safety, and care of the children placed in her home.
For Foster Home C, the age range on the BCAL-3706 form was not changed until October 2014 to state that the foster home was licensed to accept children between the ages of 2-14 years
old.
CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED APPLICABLE RULE
R 400.12325 License recommendation.
(3) Except for an original license, an agency shall recommend to the department the issuance of a regular license or the
continuation of an active license only when all rules are in compliance or both of the following conditions exist:
(b) A written corrective action plan has been developed. The plan shall be in compliance with all of the following
requirements:
(iii) Be signed and dated by the foster parent and the agency.
ANALYSIS: A CAP was developed as a result of the 12/19/2014 special evaluation for Foster Parent A. The CAP was not signed by Foster Parent A. The agency’s Director of Adoption and
Placement stated that the licensing worker, who completed the special evaluation, reported that she mailed the CAP to Foster Parent A, but never received the signed copy back.
CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED APPLICABLE RULE
R 400.12327 Special evaluation.
(1) An agency shall do all of the following when anyone in the agency receives information that relates to possible
noncompliance with any foster home rule:
(a) Submit a special investigation record to the department’s licensing authority within 5 working days in the manner
prescribed by the department.
(b) Initiate a special evaluation of the foster home as soon as is indicated, based on the information received, but not later than 7 calendar days after receipt of the information.
(c) Conduct a thorough investigation including all necessary collateral contacts.
(d) Notify all social service workers who have children placed in the home that a special evaluation has been initiated.
(2) An agency shall inform foster parents of all of the following before they are questioned or interviewed regarding a special evaluation:
(a) That a special evaluation has been initiated.
(b) A clear description of the allegations.
(c) That the foster parents may involve a person of their choice in any interviews with them involving the special evaluation if the involvement does not impede the timely completion of the
evaluation.
(3) An agency shall complete a special evaluation within 45 calendar days after receipt of the information. If additional time is required, then the agency shall inform the foster parent, in writing, of the basis for the extension and the expected length of the extension. The total time for the completion of the
investigation shall not exceed 90 calendar days without written approval from the chief administrator or his or her designee.
(4) ) Before completion of the written report required by subrule (6) of this rule, an agency shall provide the foster parent with a verbal summary of the preliminary findings at the conclusion of the evaluation.
(5) Within 15 days of the conclusion of the evaluation, an agency shall complete a written report that includes all of the following information:
(a) The date the information was received.
(b) Identification of the information source, unless anonymous or confidential, as specified in the child protection law, 1975 PA 238, MCL 722.621 to 722.638.
(c) The allegations.
(d) Dates and places of contacts, names of persons interviewed, and names of the interviewers. If children are interviewed, their last names shall not be included in the report.
(e) Findings of fact, based upon the evaluation.
(f) ) Conclusions regarding licensing rules compliance or noncompliance based on the findings of fact.
(g) ) Any change in the agency’s decision regarding the number, gender, age, race, ethnic background, and specific characteristics of children who may be placed that is based upon the documentation contained in the summary and conclusions of the report.
(h) Recommendations regarding licensing action and any required corrective action.
(6) An agency shall do all of the following:
(a) Provide the foster parent with a copy of the report
required by subrule (5) of this rule within 10 calendar days of its
completion.
(b) Inform the foster parent, in writing, that he or she has a right to have his or her written response included as an
attachment to the report required by subrule (5) of this rule.
(c) Provide a copy of the report to any social services worker that has children placed in the home.
(7) If any violations are cited and there is a signed corrective action plan, all social service workers who have children placed in the home shall be notified there is a corrective action plan and what is required of the foster parent in that plan.
ANALYSIS: In March 2015, the agency’s licensing worker was made aware that Foster Parent A had received power of attorney of a child and that the child was living in the home. Foster Parent A was in violation of foster home licensing rule 400.9502 Reporting foster home changes (c) due to her not informing the agency of the change of household composition. The agency failed to open a special evaluation to address this non-compliance of the foster home licensing rule.
A special evaluation should have been completed for Foster Home A in September 2014 regarding the allegations that were made. There is no known information about the other time or times the babysitter was drinking. A special evaluation would have addressed answered questions such as were the children in danger while she was babysitting and was she driving the children while intoxicated. The foster father is a cross country truck driver and the foster mother works outside of the home as a nurse. The home is licensed for six. The foster mother needs a reliable substitute care giver. The agency’s failure to look further into this placed the children at risk.
The May 2012 renewal reevaluation for Foster Home E indicated that on the day of the home visit for the renewal the foster parent informed the licensing worker that her daughter moved back into the home on 01/12/2012. A special evaluation was not opened for the non-compliance of the licensing rule for not notifying the agency of the change in household members.
CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED
ALLEGATION#2
:
The following information has not been entered in MiSACWIS and/or has not been provided to Oakland Co. MDHHS:
Foster Child A 1. Dental exam
2. Placement Exception Request (PER) for Foster Parent A as there were more than 6 children in the foster home.
3. Initial Service Plan (ISP) and Updated Service Plan (USP) 4. Updated school records
5. No face to face visits entered in MiSACWIS since April 2015
Foster Child B
1. Medical and dental exam
2. Family Team Meeting (FTM) for change of placement 3. ISP and USP
4. Relative licensing waiver
5. Change of placement documents 6. Updated school records
7. No face to face visits entered in MiSACWIS since April 2015 Foster Child C
1. Updated school records 2. Medical and dental exam 3. FTM for change of placement 4. Relative licensing waiver
5. Change of placement documents
6. No face to face visits entered in MiSACWIS since April 2015 7. ISP and USP
Foster Child D
1. Medical and dental exam 2. Relative home study
3. Relative licensure referral or relative licensing waiver
4. Change of placement documents. MDHHS and GAL were not notified of Foster Child D’s change of placement.
5. Social work contacts beginning on 03/18/2015 6. FTM for change of placement
7. ISP
INVESTIGATION:
A review of Foster Child A’s agency case file and his case on MiSACWIS showed the following:
• Foster Child A’s body was found on 07/10/2015 in Lake Callis in Davisburg, Michigan.
• There was not a dental exam in the case file or in MiSACWIS.
• A PER was not completed for Foster Parent A when there were more than 6 children in the home.
• The ISP for reporting period 02/23/2015 to 03/24/2015 was completed on 07/10/2015. It should be noted that an email from Kristen Nolen-Winfield, Alternatives for Children & Families' Foster Care Worker, to Alisia Johnson, Oakland Co. DHHS PAFC Monitoring Worker, dated 05/13/2015 indicated that the helpdesk ticket had been resolved, which allowed Ms. Nolen-Winfield to complete the ISP.
• The USP for report period 03/25/2015 to 06/22/2015 was in progress status in MiSACWIS.
• The case file contained Foster Child A’s IEPC dated 03/05/2015 from the school he attended while placed in Foster Parent A’s home. MiSACWIS did not contain any updated educational records.
• A face to face visit with Foster Child A took place on 04/10/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child A took place on 05/20/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/20/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child A took place on 06/10/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/20/2015.
A review of Foster Child B’s agency case file and his case on MiSACWIS showed the following:
• Foster Child B was placed with relatives on 04/28/2015.
• There were no medical or dental exam forms in the case file or in MiSACWIS.
• There were no educational records in the case file or in MiSACWIS.
• A FTM for Foster Child B’s change of placement to his relative’s home is documented in MiSACWIS having been completed on 04/23/2015. Ms. Nolen- Winfield and Foster Child B’s mother participated in the FTM. A DHS-1105, Family Team Meeting Report, was not in the file nor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• The ISP for reporting period 02/23/2015 to 03/24/2015 was completed on 07/10/2015. It should be noted that an email from Kristen Nolen-Winfield, Alternatives for Children & Families' Foster Care Worker, to Alisia Johnson, Oakland Co. DHHS PAFC Monitoring Worker, dated 05/13/2015 indicated that the helpdesk ticket had been resolved, which allowed Ms. Nolen-Winfield to complete the ISP.
• The USP for report period 03/25/2015 to 06/22/2015 was in progress status in MiSACWIS.
• A relative home study for Foster Child B’s relative placement was not in the file nor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• The relative licensing waiver was signed by the relative and supervisor
on03/17/2015. The PAFC Director signed the waiver on 03/20/2015. The waiver was not approved by the Child Welfare County Director.
• The relative caregiver did not sign the DHS-972, Foster Home Licensing Requirements for Relative Caregivers.
• The DHS-30, Foster Parent Notice and the DHS-31, Foster Care Placement Decision Notice were completed on 06/30/2015. These forms were not uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• A DHS-69 Foster Care/Juvenile Justice Action Summary to document the change of placement to Foster Child B’s relative home was not in the case file nor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• A face to face visit with Foster Child B took place on 04/28/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child B took place on 05/20/2015 and was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child B in June was not entered in MiSACWIS.
A review of Foster Child C’s agency case file and his case on MiSACWIS showed the following:
• Foster Child C was placed with relatives on 04/28/2015.
• There were no educational records in the case file or in MiSACWIS.
• There were no medical or dental exam forms in the case file or in MiSACWIS.
• A FTM for Foster Child C’s change of placement to his relative’s home is documented in MiSACWIS having been completed on 04/23/2015. Ms. Nolen- Winfield and Foster Child C’s mother participated in the FTM. A DHS-1105, Family Team Meeting Report, was not in the file nor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• A relative home study for Foster Child C’s relative placement was not in the file nor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• The relative caregiver did not sign the DHS-972, Foster Home Licensing Requirements for Relative Caregivers.
• The relative licensing waiver form was signed by the relative and supervisor on 03/17/2015. The PAFC Director signed the waiver on 03/20/2015. The waiver was not approved by the Child Welfare County Director.
• The DHS-30, Foster Parent Notice and the DHS-31, Foster Care Placement Decision Notice were completed on 06/30/2015. These forms were not uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• A DHS-69 Foster Care/Juvenile Justice Action Summary to document the change of placement to Foster Child C’s relative home was not in the case file nor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• The ISP for reporting period 02/23/2015 to 03/24/2015 was completed on 07/10/2015. It should be noted that an email from Kristen Nolen-Winfield, Alternatives for Children & Families' Foster Care Worker, to Alisia Johnson, Oakland Co. DHHS PAFC Monitoring Worker, dated 05/13/2015 indicated that the helpdesk ticket had been resolved, which allowed Ms. Nolen-Winfield to complete the ISP.
• A face to face visit with Foster Child C took place on 04/28/2015 and was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child C took place on 05/20/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child C took place on 06/10/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015.
A review of Foster Child D’s agency case file and his case on MiSACWIS showed the following:
• A medical exam was completed for Foster Child D; however, there is no date on the medical exam to verify when it was completed. The medical exam form is not uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• A dental exam was not completed for Foster Child D.
• Foster Child D was placed with his relative on 06/12/2015. The home visit to the relative’s home was completed on 05/13/2015 by Ms. Vyvyan. The relative home study for Foster Child D’s current relative placement was signed on 06/01/2015 by Ms. Vyvyan and was not signed by a supervisor. Brad Dixon, Director of Adoption & Placement Services, was typed where the supervisor’s signature should have been signed. The relative home study was entered in MiSACWIS on 06/16/2015.
• The DHS-30, Foster Parent Notice and the DHS-31, Foster Care Placement Decision Notice were completed on 06/12/2015. These forms were not uploaded in MiSACWIS. Social work contacts did not document that MDHHS was notified about the change of placement occurring before Foster Child D was placed with his relative.
• A court report dated 06/09/2015 indicated that a home study for Foster Child D’s relative was completed and that the plan was for Foster Child D to be placed with this relative on 06/12/2015 after the school year.
• A DHS-69 Foster Care/Juvenile Justice Action Summary to document the change of placement to Foster Child D’s relative home was not in the case file nor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• A face to face visit with Foster Child D took place on 04/10/2015 and was entered in MiSACWIS on 06/24/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child D took place on 05/20/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 06/24/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child D took place on 06/12/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 06/24/2015.
• A FTM for Foster Child D’s change of placement to his relative’s home is documented in MiSACWIS having been completed on 06/12/2015. Ms. Nolen- Winfield and Foster Child D’s mother participated in the FTM. A DHS-1105, Family Team Meeting Report, was not in the file nor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• The ISP was completed in MiSACWIS on 04/30/2015. The ISP has not been uploaded in MiSACWIS.
• The USP was due 06/22/2015 and it was completed 06/24/2015. The USP was uploaded in MiSACWIS on 07/07/2015.
On 07/14/2015, Geneva Harvey, Alternatives for Children & Families' Director of Clinical and Casework Services, was interviewed on-site. Ms. Harvey reported that the ISP for Foster Child A and his siblings was completed late due to there being an issue with MiSACWIS. She reported that Foster Child A did not receive a dental exam because
On 07/14/2015, Geneva Harvey, Alternatives for Children & Families' Director of Clinical and Casework Services, was interviewed on-site. Ms. Harvey reported that the ISP for Foster Child A and his siblings was completed late due to there being an issue with MiSACWIS. She reported that Foster Child A did not receive a dental exam because