Instrucciones de montaje

During the course of the investigation, it was alleged that a former foster child, who was placed in Foster Parent A’s home, was out walking in the middle of the night on

07/03/2015. The foster child went to Foster Parent A’s home and stayed there for a period of time. He left Foster Parent A’s home when she was sleeping. Foster Parent A contacted Geneva Harvey, Alternatives for Children & Families' Director of Clinical and Casework Services. Ms. Harvey told Foster Parent A that CPS did not have to be notified because the foster child had been returned to his mother’s care.

INVESTIGATION:

On 07/20/2015, Ms. Harvey was interviewed on-site. Ms. Harvey reported that on 07/04/2015 at 12:33 p.m. Foster Parent A called her and asked her if the former foster child was back in care. Ms. Harvey told Foster Parent A “not to my knowledge. He is not placed with their agency.” Ms. Harvey reported that Foster Parent A then called her back on 07/04/2015 at 1:03 p.m. and said that on 07/03/2015 the former foster child came to her house and when she woke up at 4:00 a.m. to check on the children, he and his friend were sleeping in one of the bedrooms. Foster Parent A stated that she went back to sleep and when she woke back up to cook breakfast she had noticed that he had left her home. She asked the children in the home where he went and one of the children said that he left because Foster Parent A said that he could not go to the beach with them. Foster Parent A told Ms. Harvey that she called and texted the former foster child’s mother but she did not call her back. Foster Parent A called the former foster child on his cell phone and asked him why he left. He told Foster Parent A that he left because he could not go to the beach with them. Foster Parent A told him that he could go if she spoke with an adult. The former foster child put someone on the phone that sounded like another child but was pretending to be an adult. Foster Parent A told the former foster child that she needed to speak with an adult but he said that his

she could contact CPS regarding him staying at her home. Ms. Harvey stated that she did not notify CPS or anyone else regarding the matter. She reported that the former foster child is 11 years old and his foster care case was closed.

A review of the former foster child’s case in MiSACWIS was completed. The former foster child is 11 years old. He was returned to his mother’s care and his case was closed on 06/08/2015. One of the reasons he was brought into foster care was due to lack of supervision.

APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.12214 Compliance with 1975 PA 238.

An agency shall develop a written plan and implement the plan to assure compliance with 1975 PA 238, MCL 722.621, and known as the child protection law.

ANALYSIS: Ms. Harvey reported that Foster Parent A contacted her

regarding the former foster child sleeping at her house; however, she reported that Foster Parent A did not ask if she should contact CPS. Ms. Harvey stated that she did not contact CPS or anyone else such as law enforcement regarding the matter.

Ms. Harvey should have contacted CPS to report the allegations due to the child being a former foster child, Foster Parent A waking up to find him sleeping in her home, the foster care case recently being closed and one of the reasons he entered foster care was due to lack of supervision.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

ALLEGATION#5:

During the course of the investigation, it was alleged that Alternatives for Children & Families’ workers are completing “drive-by” visits with foster children and are

documenting them as actual visits.

It should be noted that the following allegations were not investigated as they are not possible rule/MSA/DHHS policy or contract violation, or difficult to prove without additional information:

• Mishandling of funds by CEO-lack of work ethic • Salary in justifications

• Misuse/abuse of Christmas gifts • Falsification of training hours for staff

INVESTIGATION:

Six of fifty-nine foster parents who are licensed through Alternatives for Children & Families were randomly selected and interviewed.

On 07/23/2015, Foster Parent B was interviewed via telephone. Foster Parent B reported that her adoption worker visits every month. She reported that there have been no issues with the agency not visiting the foster children in her home.

On 07/23/2015, Foster Parent C was interviewed via telephone. Foster Parent C reported that the adoption worker visits the home every month. She reported no issues with the agency.

On 07/23/2015, Foster Parent D was interviewed via telephone. Foster Parent D stated that the foster care worker visits her home every month and some visits are

unannounced. She stated that the foster care worker speaks with her regarding issues she may have and talks with the children. Foster Parent D reported no issues with the agency.

On 07/23/2015, Foster Parent E was interviewed via telephone. Foster Parent E reported that the foster care worker visits every month. She stated that she asks her questions about the children and she answers Foster Parent E’s questions. Foster Parent E reported that she lives over 60 miles from the agency and if Foster Parent E is not home, then the worker will not leave the area until the children have been seen. On 07/23/2015, Foster Parent F was interviewed via telephone. Foster Parent F stated that the foster care worker visits his home and the children every month. He reported no issues with the agency.

On 07/29/2015, Foster Parent G was interviewed via telephone. Foster Parent G stated that the foster care worker visits her home and the children every month. She reported that she does not have any issues with the agency.

APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.12421 Visitation and parenting time.

An agency shall have a policy regarding visitation and parenting time that contains, at a minimum, all of the following:

(b) An agency social service worker shall visit the foster child and the foster parent in the foster parent’s home at least once every month.

ANALYSIS: Six of fifty-nine foster parents who are licensed through

Alternatives for Children & Families were randomly selected and interviewed regarding home visits. All of the foster parents reported that the worker visits the home and children every month. The foster parents reported no issues with the agency.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION NOT ESTABLISHED

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the agency’s continuous pattern of failing to recommend appropriate licensing recommendations for special evaluations that were reviewed during the current special investigation after the findings showed substantial non-compliance of foster home licensing, the agency’s failure to provide foster parents with adequate training on how to care for children who will or have been placed in their home, and the violations regarding Foster Home A, Foster Home B, Foster Home C, Foster Home D and Foster Home E, revocation of the agency’s license is being

recommended. 08/17/2015 Alicia Wiggins Licensing Consultant Date Approved By: August 17, 2015 Linda Tansil Area Manager Date