Report on Omarion Humphrey

8/20/2019 Report on Omarion Humphrey

1/45

RICK SNYDERGOVERNOR

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESDEPARTMENT OF CHILD WELFARE LICENSING

NICK LYONDIRECTOR

August 17, 2015

Yvwania Richardson Alternatives for Children & Families, Inc.PO Box 190238Burton, MI 48519

RE: License #:Investigation #:

CB2502009452015C0221023

Alternatives for Children & Families, Inc.

Dear Ms. Richardson:

Attached is the Special Investigation Report for the above referenced facility. Due tothe severity of the violations, disciplinary action against your license is recommended.You will be notified in writing of the department’s action and your options for resolutionof this matter.

Please review the enclosed documentation for accuracy and contact me with anyquestions. In the event that I am not available and you need to speak to someoneimmediately, please contact the local office at (248) 975-5053.

Please note that violations of any licensing rules are also violations of the MSA and yourcontract.

Sincerely,

Alicia Wiggins, Licensing ConsultantMDHHS\Division of Child Welfare Licensing

4th Floor, Suite 4B51111 Woodward AvenuePontiac, MI 48342(248) 917-1048

enclosure

P.O. BOX 30664 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-8164www.michigan.gov • (517) 284-9700

http://www.michigan.gov/http://www.michigan.gov/


2/45

1

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESDEPARTMENT OF CHILD WELFARE LICENSING

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

I. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

License #: CB250200945

Investigation #: 2015C0221023

Complaint Receipt Date: 07/08/2015

Investigation Initiation Date: 07/08/2015

Report Due Date: 09/06/2015

Licensee Name: Alternatives For Children & Families, Inc.

Licensee Address: 2065 South Center RoadBurton, MI 48519

Licensee Telephone #: (810) 250-3820

Administrator: Yvwania Richardson, Administrator

Licensee Designee: (810) 250-3820

Name of Facility: Alternatives for Children & Families, Inc.

Facili ty Address: 2065 S. Center RdBurton, MI 48519

Facility Telephone #: (810) 250-3820

Original Issuance Date: 03/01/1993

License Status: REGULAR

Effective Date: 01/27/2015

Expiration Date: 01/26/2017

Capacity: Unknown

Program Type: CHILD PLACING AGENCY, PRIVATE


3/45

2

II. ALLEGATION(S)

ViolationEstablished?

Alternatives for Children & Families placed Foster Child A in afoster home that has had several infractions, many for lack ofsupervision. They left an additional foster child in the home afterFoster Child A went missing.

Yes

The following information has not been entered in MiSACWISand/or has not been provided to Oakland Co. MDHHS:

Foster Child A1. Dental exam2. Placement Exception Request (PER) for Foster Parent A asthere were more than 6 children in the foster home.

3. Initial Service Plan (ISP) and Updated Service Plan (USP)4. Updated school records5. No face to face visits entered in MiSACWIS since April 2015

Foster Child B1. Medical and dental exam2. Family Team Meeting (FTM) for change of placement3. ISP and USP4. Relative licensing waiver5. Change of placement documents6. Updated school records

7. No face to face visits entered in MiSACWIS since April 2015

Foster Child C1. Updated school records2. Medical and dental exam3. FTM for change of placement4. Relative licensing waiver5. Change of placement documents6. No face to face visits entered in MiSACWIS since April 2015

Foster Child D1. Medical and dental exam2. Relative home study3. Relative licensure referral or relative licensing waiver4. Change of placement documents. MDHHS and GAL were notnotified of Foster Child D’s change of placement.5. Social work contacts beginning on 03/18/20156. FTM for change of placement

Yes

MDHHS and GAL were not notified of Foster Child A’s AWOLPaccording to MDHHS’ AWOLP policy.

Yes

Additional Findings: Yes


4/45

3

III. METHODOLOGY

07/08/2015 Special Investigation Intake

2015C0221023

07/08/2015 Special Investigation Initiated - TelephoneSpoke with Oakland Co. MDHHS Supervisor, Justin Wrobel,Oakland Co. MDHHS Foster Care Worker, Ebony Jeffries andOakland Co. MDHHS Foster Care Worker, Alisia Johnson.

07/10/2015 Inspection Completed On-siteReviewed Foster Parent A's case file.

07/14/2015 Contact - Face to Face

Interviewed Alternatives for Children & Families' Director ofClinical and Casework Services, Geneva Harvey. ReviewedFoster Parent A, Foster Child A, Foster Child B, Foster Child Cand Foster Child D’s case files and documentation on MiSACWIS.

07/20/2015 Contact - Face to FaceInterviewed Kristen Nolen-Winfield, Alternatives for Children &Families' Foster Care Worker, Laura Vyvyan, Alternatives forChildren & Families' Licensing Worker, Brad Dixon, Director of

Adoption & Placement Services, and Geneva Harvey, Director ofClinical and Caseworker Services. Reviewed documentation on

MiSACWIS.

07/23/2015 Contact - Telephone call madeInterviewed Foster Parent B, Foster Parent C, Foster Parent D,Foster Parent E and Foster Parent F.

07/29/2015 Contact - Telephone call receivedInterviewed Foster Parent G.

08/05/2015 Contact - Face to FaceReviewed licensing files for Foster Home A, Foster Home B,

Foster Home C, Foster Home D, Foster Home E and Foster HomeF.

08/14/2015 Exit Conference


5/45

4

ALLEGATION #1:

Alternatives for Children & Families placed Foster Child A in a foster home that has hadseveral infractions, many for lack of supervision. They left an additional foster child inthe home after Foster Child A went missing.

INVESTIGATION:

A review of the Interim Inspections and Renewal Inspections beginning in 2012 for Alternatives for Children & Families revealed the following citations:

January 2012 Interim Inspection• R 400.12212 Personnel Records (3) (a)• R 400.12311 Placement Agreement (3) and (4)• R 400.12313 Reevaluation (6)• R 400.12314 License Recommendation (3)(b)(iii)

•

R 400.12315 Borrowed Home (1)(b), (c), (d), (f) and (g)• R 400.12316 Special Evaluation (2)(a), (b), (c), (4) and (5)• R 400.12403 Policy and Procedures (2) (p)• R 400.12404 Placement (5)• R 400.12409 Education Policy• R 400.12413 Medical and Dental Care Policy (1)(c)(ii) and (f)(i)• R 400.12418 Service Plans: Initial and Updated (2) and (3)• R 400.12419 Visitation (2)• R 400.12606 Agency Recommendation (3)• R 400.12707 Orientation (a),(b),(c),(d) and (e)

January 2013 Renewal Inspection• R 400.12306 Application Request (2)(a),(b),(c),(d),(e),(f),(g) and (i)• R 400.12313 Reevaluation (2) (b)• R 400.12314 License Recommendation (3)(b)(iii)• R 400.12404 Placement (5), (6)(a)(iii-vi), (6)(b), (6)(c), (6)(d) and (6)(g)• R 400.12405 Change of Placement (d)• R 400.12409 Education Policy• R 400.12413 Medical and Dental Care Policy (1)(c)(ii)• R 400.12418 Service Plans: Initial and Updated (1)(a)(b), (6)(a) and (6)(g)• R 400.12605 Adoptive Evaluation (3)(i),(v), (viii),(ix),(x) and (xv)

• R 400.12606 Agency Recommendation (3)• MSA VI E Caseload Standards• MSA VII A Assessments and Service Plans• MSA VII B Supervisory Overnight of Assessments and Service Plans• MSA VII G Caseworker Contact and Visits• MSA VII G Worker-Parent Visits• DHHS Policy FOM 722-6 Foster Care-Developing the Service Plan


6/45

5

• DHHS Policy FOM 722-6 Unannounced Home Visit• DHHS Policy FOM 722-8 Foster Care –Initial Service Plan (Supervisory

Approval)• DHHS Policy FOM 722-8C Foster Care –Parent Agency Treatment Plan &

Service Agreement

• DHHS Policy FOM 722-9 Foster Care-Updated Service Plan (Supervisory Approval)

• DHHS Policy FOM 722-9 USP Updated• DHHS Policy ADM 210 Required Adoption Focus Activities• DHHS Policy ADM 300 Child Adoption Assessments• DHHS Policy ADM 330 Quarterly Adoption Progress Reports• DHHS Policy ADM 710 State Ward Tracking System and Registration on the

Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange• DHHS Policy ADM 950 Post Placement, Adoption Supervision and Finalization

Procedures• DHHS Policy ADM 980 Closing Documentation

February 2014 Interim Inspection• R 400.12214 Compliance with 1975 PA 238• R 400.12315 Borrowed home (1) (c),(f) and (g)• R 400.12418 Service plans; initial and updated (2) and (3)• R 400.12419 Visitation (2)• MSA VII.G.2 Caseworker Contacts and Visits• DHHS Policy FOM 722-6 Unannounced Home Visit• DHHS Policy FOM 722-6H Caseworker Contact with Child in Out-of-Home

Placement: First Two Months after Initial Placement or a Placement Move•

DHHS Policy FOM 722-8 ISP Supervisory Approval• DHHS Policy FOM 722-8C PATP Signatures Development, Participation and

Negotiation of PATP –Signatures• DHHS Policy FOM 722-9 USP Supervisory Approval

December 2014 Renewal Inspection• R 400.12310 Initial evaluation (2)• R 400.12316 Special evaluation (6)(a) and (b)• R 400.12317 Foster home record (2)(d) (iii)• R 400.12418 Service plans; initial and updated (1)(a) and (b)• MSA VII A 5 Assessments and Service Plans

• MSA VII B Supervisory Oversight of Assessments and Service Plans• MSA VII D 1b Family Team Meetings• MSA VIII B 3 Medical Files• DHHS Policy FOM 722-3 Quarterly Assessments• DHHS Policy FOM 722-6 Unannounced Home Visit• DHHS Policy FOM 722-6H Caseworker Contact with Child in Out-of-Home

Placement: First Two Months after Initial Placement or a Placement Move• DHHS Policy FOM 722-8 ISP Supervisory Approval


7/45

6

• DHHS Policy FOM 722-9 USP Supervisory Approval• DHS Policy FOM 801 Health Requirements

A review of the Special Investigations (SI) beginning in 2012 for Alternatives forChildren & Families revealed the following citations:

• SI#2013C0420016 was received on 12/21/2012. The allegations were asfollows: (1) the agency failed to complete a timely DHS- 69 showing Child A andChild B’s out of state address change, USP covering the quarterly period05/19/2012-08/16/2012, or to submit the next USP due 11/2012; as well as,failed to submit court reports for court hearing 07/13/2012 and 08/10/2012, (2)the agency failed to request courtesy out-of-state supervision or a wellness childcheck for Child A and Child B whose Guardianship was not ordered for until09/26/2012, (3) it was also noted that the complaint included an allegationpertaining to overpayments to the agency, after the children’s relative’s homewas closed, yet that issue was not investigated as it was not rule related , and

reportedly repayment issues were being addressed. The agency receivedcitations for the following:o R 400.12207 Staff responsibilities (3) (a). The agency did not complete a

court report for the children’s 07/13/2012 or 08/10/2012, court hearing;and review of the court order for each hearing indicated the agency gave averbal report suggesting the court did not require/request a written courtreport. However, the worker/agency did not appropriately indicate thisinformation to DHHS; and therein was/were not responsive in her duties towork directly with DHHS.

o R 400.12418 Service plans, Initial and Updated (1) (b). The 05/19/2012-08/16/2012 USP stated 08/16/2012 as the completion date; however, the

agency worker, supervisor and director all indicated the USP signed bythe worker and supervisor on10/18/2012 was not completed on time.o DHHS Policy FOM 913-4 Placement Resources: Child Placing Agency

Reporting Requirements. A DHS-69 documenting Child A and Child B’sreplacement to Arkansas was not completed and the foster care workercould not recall when exactly DHHS was made aware of the placementchange. The change was indicated in the 05/19/2012- 08/16/2012 USP,which was documented being submitted to DHHS on 10/18/2012.

Additionally, the agency did not complete a November 2012 USP and onewas due for the period 08/17/2012- 11/14/2012, in that the last USP’s08/16/2012 end date, and the 11/08/2012 date the agency submitted the

DHS-69 Action Summary closing the case was greater than 30 calendardays. This stated USP remained outstanding. Furthermore, the agency’scase closing DHS-69 Action Summary was completed 11/05/2012 per theworker’s signature date and submitted to DHHS 11/08/2012, more thanthree business days of the children’s guardianship which was granted atthe 09/07/2012 court hearing.

o DHHS Policy FOM-722 Foster Care- Courtesy Supervision. A request toDHHS for courtesy supervision of Child A and Child B’s placement in


8/45

7

Arkansas, pending their guardianship by their great grandmother, was notmade.

o MSA VII D Family Team Meeting. A family team meeting was not heldrelated to Child A and Child B’s relocation out- of- state, and the casetermination.

• SI#2013C0420024 was received on 03/07/2013. The allegations were as follows:(1) the agency placed Child A in Illinois without prior Interstate approval. The agencyfailed to seek courtesy supervision, and had no face to face contact or supervisionfor the child from 12/23/2012 through 01/29/2013. (2) During the course of theinvestigation, it was discovered the agency failed to complete an action summary(DHS-69) related to Child A’s replacement, as the agency believed case transfer toDHHS was within the required timeframe. The agency failed to conduct aFTM prior to or after the child’s replacement. The agency received citations for thefollowing:

o R 400.12403 Policy and procedures (1). The agency admitted it allowed the

grandparent to take the child for placement in Illinois, prior to InterstateCompact’s approval of the home/placement.o DHHS Policy FOM 722-14. A request to DHHS for courtesy supervision of

Child A’ s placement with the maternal grandparents, in Illinois, for the periodDecember 23, 2012 to January 29, 2013 was not made.

o DHHS Policy FOM 913-4 Placement Resources: Child Placing AgencyReporting Requirements. The agency did not provide advance notice toDHHS of Child A’s replacement to Illinois. The DHS-69 documenting Child A’sreplacement to Illinois was completed 01/02/2013, more than three businessdays after the child’s 12/23/2012 placement with the grandparents.

o MSA VII D Family Team Meeting. A FTM was not held related to Child A’srelocation out- of-state/replacement.

• SI#2013C0420048 was received on 08/26/2013. The allegations were as follows: (1)On 8/25/2013, Child A (2 ½) choked on a peanut butter sandwich and died. (2) Duringthe course of the investigation, it was discovered the agency’s special evaluation reportrelated to Child A’s death, and three other special evaluation reports (dated02/12/2013, 02/26/2013 and 09/02/2013) contained information related to ChildrenProtective Services’ (CPS) involvement. The special evaluation report related to Child

A’s death mentioned CPS several times and named the CPS worker. Two other specialevaluation reports reviewed during the investigation also mentioned CPS on more thanone occasion. (3) During the course of the investigation, it was discovered the agencydid not request an exception for Child A’s foster parents to have more than a total of sixchildren placed in the foster home, as mandated by DHHS policy. The agency receivedcitations for the following:

o 722.120 Investigation and examination of conditions, books, records, andreports; visits regarding health or fire protection; records; report; forms;confidentiality; disclosure of information; availability of confidential records.[M.S.A. 25.358(20)] The agency’s special evaluation related to Child A’s


9/45

8

death and two other special evaluations completed on Child A’s foster parentsin 2013 did not safeguard CPS’s involvement.

o DHHS Policy FOM 722-3 Foster Care- Placement/Replacement. An exceptionrequest (DHS- 399) for the foster family to have more than a total of sixchildren in the home was not requested or approved.

• SI#2013C0420054 was received on 09/25/2013. The allegations were as follows: (1)The agency failed to invite the Lawyer- Guardian Ad Litem (LGAL) to Youth A’s FTMheld 05/28/2013 or to hold a FTM after Youth A went AWOLP in July and August 2013.(2)The agency failed to provide notice of Youth A’s AWOLPs to the LGAL or to file foran AWOLP hearing with the court. (3) The agency failed to pursue Youth A’s goal ofindependent living by obtaining him a supervised independent living stipend as orderedby the court on 06/11/2013. (4) The agency failed to seek the Michigan ChildrenInstitute’s (MCI) assistance in approval of an alternative placement of Youth A, an MCIward, with his biological mother. (5) The agency closed Youth A’s case prior toproviding Youth A his clothing allowance. (6) Youth A has had four different workers

since May 2013. (7) During the source of the investigation, it was discovered Youth A’s12/28/2012-02/22/2013 USP did not contain the youth’s or foster parent’s signature; andthat a subsequent USP was late. The agency received citations for the following:

o MSA VII D Family Team Meeting. Written nor advance notification of the May28, 2013 FTM, nor indicated scheduled August 12, 2013 and August 15, 2013FTMs was not provided to the LGAL nor did the FTM convene in absence of thefamily, as dictated in the MSA requirement.

o DHHS Policy FOM 722-3 Foster Care Placement and Replacement. The agencycontacted DHHS related to the AWOLP and provided the child’s known location.Written notification to the court for an AWOLP hearing was not advised.However, after receiving notification of the youth’s AWOLP in July and again in

August, the agency did not provide notification of the AWOLPs to the LGAL orcourt within 24 hours as indicated by the policy.

o DHHS Policy FOM 722-8 C Foster Care- Parent Agency Treatment Plan &Service Agreement. The 12/28/2012- 02/22/2013 service plan did not contain thefoster parent’s signature.

o MSA VII A Assessments and Service Plans. The 12/28/2012-02/22/2013 serviceplan did not contain the youth’s signature.

o DHHS Policy FOM 722-6 Foster Care- Updated Service Plan. The supervisorsigned the 05/24/2013-08/21/2013 USP seven days late.

• SI#2014C0420039 was received on 07/10/2014. The allegations were as follows: (1)The agency failed to maintain various case file documentation as required by policy,inclusive of a signed copy of a September 12, 2012 court report, Foster CareReview Board (FCRB) Report regarding the agency’s recommendation for Child A’sreplacement from his foster home; social work contacts of the agency’s contacts withthe paternal uncle, and social work contacts of Child A’s visits with the paternal uncle;and a copy of the paternal uncle’s guardianship petition and the court’s denial orderpertaining to it. (2) The agency failed to complete a relative home study on Child A’s


10/45

9

paternal uncle prior to, recommending the uncle for placement of Child A, allowing Child A unsupervised visits with the paternal uncle. (3) During the course of the investigationit was discovered, the agency did not complete FTMs as required by MSA and policy.

Additionally, the agency did not conduct criminal history and central registry clearanceson Child A’s paternal uncle’s wife prior to allowing visitations between Child A and the

paternal uncle and his wife. The agency received citations for the following:o DHHS Policy FOM 722-05 Foster Case- Case Record. The agency failed toobtain or maintain a copy of service activity reporting: namely, a December 2013FCRB hearing document and guardianship petitioning and denial documentationrelated the child’s paternal uncle’s pursuit of guardianship of the child. Theagency admitted, it did not request or obtain a copy of the FCRB document untilmonths after the said event; and after DHHS brought the matter to theirattention. The agency was not sure when the guardianship paper work wasreceived; though it was provided via DHHS just prior to or after this complaint.

o DHHS Policy FOM 722-06H Caseworker Contacts. The agency failed toadequately document its or Child A’s ongoing contacts with the paternal uncle,or the paternal uncle’s wife. The agency reported its worker conducted a homevisit with the paternal uncle and his wife on 10/29/2013 to assess the paternaluncle’s home; and that the relative had a visit with Child A in Child A’s fosterhome 10/31/2013; and thereafter visited Child A in the community; and that Child

A had at least two overnight visits with the paternal uncle in December 2013. Also that the paternal uncle continued visitations with Child A until July 2014.The 10/29/2013, 10/31/2013 or other specific dates of visits or contacts with thepaternal uncle, or between the paternal uncle and Child A were not documented,on some type of visit sheet, or within the social work contacts of the serviceplans.

o MSA VIII D 6(c) Foster & Adoption Recruitment, Retention & Support. Theagency scheduled placement of Child A with a paternal uncle and the uncle’swife for 12/13/2013, but it failed to complete a home study, or document that theuncle’s home was safe and was an appropriate placement for Child A prior toallowing Child A unsupervised visits with the paternal uncle. A home study onthis uncle and his wife was not documented until 07/01/2014.

o MSA VII D Family Team Meeting. A FTM was not documented to have occurredwhen the agency decided to pursue the paternal uncle as a permanentplacement plan for Child A; or during the case service plan periods notably07/20/2013- 10/08/2013; 10/09/2013- 01/06/2014, and 01/07/2014- 04/04/2014.

o DHHS Policy FOM 722-06 Criminal Record Check-Law Enforcement InformationNetwork( LEIN). The agency failed to obtain or request a criminal historyclearance on Child A’s paternal uncle’s wife, prior to allowing contact betweenthat person and Child A. The agency did not obtain a criminal history clearanceon the paternal uncle’s wife until 07/07/2014, though contacts between the childand the paternal uncle reportedly commenced in October or November 2013;and subsequently included unsupervised overnight visits in December 2013,which would have included the paternal uncle’s wife.

o R 400.12207 Staff responsibilities (3) (a). The agency staff failed to obtain orapprise DHHS of the need for a central registry clearance on Child A’s paternal


11/45

10

uncle’s wife, prior to allowing that person contact and unsupervised visits withthe child; or to keep DHHS apprised of the dates and outcome of the visits withthat person and Child A’s paternal uncle.

Foster Parent A’s case file was reviewed on 07/14/2015. Since 2012, the agency

completed six special evaluations on Foster Parent A. Foster Parent A was found to bein non-compliance of licensing rules and provided with a corrective action plan (CAP) forfour of the special evaluations.

• On 05/08/2012, the agency opened a special evaluation. The allegations were asfollows: (1) A 17 year old foster child was arrested for alleged sexual contact withanother youth in the home. (2) Foster Parent A takes a foster child to his biologicalmother’s home for parenting time. Foster Parent A was found to be in non-compliancewith R 400.9501 (2) (a) due to Foster Parent A being a mandated reporter and notcalling the allegations into Genesee Co. CPS. Foster Parent A was found to be in non-compliance with R400.9202 (e) due to Foster Parent A’s mother, who was the substitute

caregiver and the adult in the home responsible for supervision of the children,indicating that she did not leave her bedroom to check on the children while they were inanother area of the house. The CAP consisted of Foster Parent A agreeing to contactCPS immediately any time physical or sexual abuse is suspected or known to haveoccurred in the foster home, provide direct supervision to all youth in the foster homeand attend training titled “Rights, Roles and Responsibilities of foster parents.”

• On 08/25/2013, the agency opened a special evaluation. The allegation was thatFoster Parent A backhanded a foster child in the face and hurt his nose. No marks orbruises were observed. The foster child stated Foster Parent A backhanded himbecause his brother hit him and he hit his brother back. Foster Parent A was found tobe in non-compliance with R 400. 9201 (i) and R 400.9404 (1) and (3). The foster childand his brother reported that Foster Parent A has used physical discipline on the fosterchild. The foster child repeated the same exact story to his foster care worker and thefoster care worker’s supervisor, who both felt that he was telling the truth. The CAPconsisted of Foster Parent A agreeing to provide appropriate discipline according to theagency’s policy, which states that physical discipline cannot be used on any youthresiding in the foster home and attending training on behavioral management.

• On 08/21/2014, the agency opened a special evaluation. The allegation was that afoster child disclosed to Foster Parent A that two foster children in the home kissed. Itwas alleged that the female foster child performed oral sex on the male foster child.Foster Parent A was found to be in non-compliance with R 400.9501 (2) (a) due toFoster Parent A being a mandated reporter and not calling the allegations into GeneseeCo. CPS. Foster Parent A was found to be in non-compliance with R 400.9202 (e) dueto Foster Parent A’s mother, who was the adult in the home who was responsible forsupervision, was sitting on the front porch while the children were playing in the backyard. Foster Parent A was in the house cooking dinner. The CAP consisted of FosterParent A agreeing to contact CPS immediately any time physical or sexual abuse issuspected or known to have occurred in the foster home, provide direct supervision to


12/45

11

all youth in the foster home and attend training titled “Rights, Roles and Responsibilitiesof foster parents.”

• On 12/19/2014, the agency opened a special evaluation. The allegation was thatFoster Parent A did not administer a foster child’s prescription medication as ordered.

The prescribed medication was in the foster child’s possession and not locked in a safeplace. Foster Parent A was found to be in non-compliance with R 400.9411 (3) due toFoster Parent A admitting that she gave the foster child her medication to give to thenew foster parent when going on a weekend visitation with the new foster parent. FosterParent A was found to be in non-compliance with R 400.9411 (4) due to Foster Parent Anot giving the foster child her prescribed Risperdal for over a week as the medicationwas missing and Foster Parent A did not report this to the case manager. The agencydeveloped a CAP for Foster Parent A consisting of Foster Parent A agreeing to keep allprescribed and over the counter medication in a locked safe place, not allowing childrento keep medication in their possession and dispensing medication prescribed by aphysician to the foster child. This CAP was not signed by Foster Parent A.

Foster Parent A’s training log was reviewed. There was no documentation that providedevidence that Foster Parent A had received training pertaining to caring forchildren who have autism. Foster Parent A signed the agency’s Foster ParentInformation Checklist form for Foster Child A on 02/27/2015. The form documented thatFoster Child A was non-verbal and he had autism.

On 07/20/2015, Laura Vyvyan, Alternatives for Children & Families' Licensing Worker,was interviewed on-site. Ms. Vyvyan reported that she began her employment with

Alternatives for Children & Families on 03/18/2015. She reported that the only specialevaluation that she has been assigned to is the current one regarding Foster Child A’sdisappearance at the park. Ms. Vyvyan reported that she has not completed the specialevaluation regarding Foster Child A. She stated that when Foster Child A was placedwith Foster Parent A there were not more than 6 children in the home. However, Ms.Vyvyan stated that in March 2015 Kristen Nolen-Winfield, Alternatives for Children &Families' Foster Care Worker, completed a home visit with Foster Parent A andobserved that another child was living in the home. Ms. Nolen-Winfield then informedMs. Vyvyan that there was another child living in the home, which Foster Parent A hadreceived power of attorney for so that she could care for him. She stated that she hadreceived the power of attorney documentation from Foster Parent A approximately 6weeks ago. Ms. Vyvyan stated that she did not open a special evaluation regardingFoster Parent A not disclosing the household member change because she was waitingfor Foster Parent A to provide the documentation showing that she has power ofattorney of the child. Ms. Vyvyan reported that a PER was not requested once therewere more than 6 children in Foster Parent A’s home. Ms. Vyvyan indicated that to herknowledge Foster Parent A has not had any training pertaining to caring for childrenwho have autism.

On 07/20/2015, Brad Dixon, Director of Adoption & Placement Services, wasinterviewed on-site. Mr. Dixon reported that Foster Parent A did not have training


13/45

12

pertaining to caring for children who have autism. He reported that he reviewed FosterParent A’s case file including the special evaluations that have been completed on her.He indicated that after reviewing the special evaluations Foster Parent A’s licenseprobably should have been changed to a provisional license. Mr. Dixon stated that hecould not explain why Foster Parent A continued to have a regular license after the

special evaluations were completed. He reported that when a foster parent is placed ona provisional license the agency usually does not place children in the home becausethe agency does not receive payment for the foster child. Mr. Dixon stated that when afoster home is placed on a provisional license the issues in the foster home have to besevere, which would cause the children to be removed from the home. He reported thatthe issues being addressed in the special evaluations for Foster Parent A were not thatsevere to remove the children from the foster home. Mr. Dixon reported that he wasmade aware that Foster Parent A had power of attorney of Child D via the documentthat was signed on 03/03/2015. He reported that a special evaluation was not openedon Foster Parent A for not informing the agency of the change of her householdmembers. Mr. Dixon stated that Foster Parent A did not sign the CAP for the

12/19/2014 special evaluation. He stated that the licensing worker who completed thespecial evaluation reported that she mailed the CAP to Foster Parent A, but neverreceived the signed copy back.

As a result of the significant licensing rule violations with Foster Parent A stemmingfrom the investigation of Allegation#1, further foster home licensing files were reviewed.On 08/05/2015, six of fifty-nine foster home licensing files were randomly selected andreviewed. The following information was found in the foster home licensing files:

Foster Home A• A biological parent complained that she smelled liquor on the breath of the

babysitter of the children while at the hospital on 08/26/2014. An incident reportwas written on 09/03/2014 by the agency when they were made aware. A letterwas sent to the foster parent on 09/15/2014 summarizing a meeting with thefoster parent, (a date was not given for the meeting), acknowledging that thefoster parent was aware of the allegation that the babysitter smelled like alcoholand that it had happened before. She gave the babysitter a drug/alcohol screenwhich came back negative. The foster mother decided not to use the babysitteragain. The letter stated that the foster mother would be off work for 4-6 weeksand the children would be enrolled in a local daycare center.

Foster Home B• The agency received a complaint on 04/14/2015. The investigation close date is

05/28/2015 and the report signature date is 06/01/2015. The CAP was signed bythe foster parent on 06/01/2015. Foster Home B was found to be in non-compliance with the following rules:

o R 400.9201 (j) (k) Foster home applicant/licensee qualifications. In theagency’s investigation, the foster mother initially lied about a retail fraudcharge. She reported she thought it was not on her record because shedid not do it, yet she was serving community service for it.


14/45

13

o R400.9301 (1) Maintenance. The agency’s report cited broken glass onthe front lawn.

o R400.9304 (1) (a) and (2) Smoke detectors; carbon monoxide detectors.

The agency’s report stated there was no carbon monoxide detector andno batteries for the smoke detectors.

o R400.9306 (3) (b) and (d) Bedrooms. A foster child, who had been in thehome for a year, had no bedding for the entire time he was in the home.

o R400.9310 (2) Smoking. The foster parent cleaned away ashes duringthe interview with the workers and asked her if they smelled smoke.

o R400.9413 (3) and (4) Substitute care. Upon arrival for the investigation,the worker found the children alone with the foster parent’s 13 year old

relative providing substitute care.

o Rule 400.9414 (4) (f) Unusual incident notification. The foster motherfailed to report the retail fraud and license suspensions.

o R400.9415 (2) Hazardous materials. The foster mother did not havemedication stored securely.

Foster Home C• 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.• 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 constructionand has a net income of $2800.00 per month. However, the lists of income andexpenses all say that he is receiving this amount as unemployment. The 2012renewal reevaluation says he is receiving unemployment.

• The 2014 renewal reevaluation report did not have an assessment of trainingneeds of foster parents. They have children placed in their home. All of thetraining these foster parents have had since licensure has been taken on-line,has been from books and videos. The report says there is a mandatory 2 hourtraining that all foster parents must take every 2 years on rights, role, and

responsibilities of foster parents. It was not documented that they had thetraining.• The 2013 interim report has no assessment of training needs. The report just

says they received 10 hours of training and need 6 more hours. The report saysthere is a mandatory 2 hour training that all foster parents must take every 2years on rights, role, and responsibilities of foster parents. It was notdocumented that they had the training.


15/45

14

• The 2012 reevaluation report has no assessment of training hours. The reportsays there is a mandatory 2 hour training that all foster parents must take every 2years on rights, role, and responsibilities of foster parents. It was notdocumented that they had the training.

• The 2015 relocation study, 2014 renewal report, 2013 interim report all say they

are licensed for children 5-14 years. The 2012 renewal report says they arelicensed for children 2-10 years. The 2012 BCAL-3706 form says they arelicensed for children 2-10 years.

Foster Home D• The 2012 reevaluation report says the foster parents each competed 6 hours of

training. Four hours each was for watching the movie “Blindside.” The trainingrecords in the file list no training received for 2012 at all. There is no supportingdocumentation that indicates that any training was received for 2012, includingwhat is mentioned in the report.

• The 2013 reevaluation and 2014 renewal reevaluation had no assessment of

training needs for the foster parents. It only says how many hours they got, howmany they need, and that they have to attend the mandatory training on rights,role, and responsibilities of foster parents.

Foster Home E• The 2012, 2013 and 2014 reevaluation reports state that the foster parent needs

to complete the mandatory training on rights, role, and responsibilities of fosterparents.

• Substitute caregiver did not receive a criminal history clearance and a centralregistry clearance.

Foster Home F• The May 2012 renewal reevaluation indicated that on the day of the home visit

for the renewal the foster parent informed the licensing worker that her daughtermoved back into the home on 01/12/2012. A special evaluation was not openedfor the non-compliance of the licensing rule for not notifying the agency of thechange in household members.

• Substitute caregiver did not receive a criminal history clearance and a centralregistry clearance.

• The training log for the foster parent documented the following trainings:o Antoine Fisher movie on 05/17/2011o I am Sam movie on 05/17/2011

o Losing Isaiah on 05/17/2011o Antoine Fisher movie on 05/02/2012o I am Sam movie on 05/02/2012o Losing Isaiah on 05/02/2012


16/45

15

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12206 Staff qualifications.

(1) An agency shall require a staff member who has ongoingcontact with children or parents to be a person who is of good

character and emotionally stable and who has the ability,experience, education, and training to perform the dutiesassigned.

ANALYSIS: Five special evaluations were reviewed and all demonstrate apattern of Brad Dixon, Alternatives for Children & Families’Director of Adoption & Placement Services, approving specialevaluations which have inappropriate licensingrecommendations based on the findings and continuing torecommend regular licenses for foster parents when significantviolations have been cited and safety issues are present.

On 05/08/2012, the agency opened a special evaluation inwhich Foster Parent A was found to be in non-compliance withR 400.9501 (2) (a) due to not reporting alleged sexual abuseallegations into Genesee Co. CPS. She was found to be in non-compliance with R400.9202 (e) due to lack of supervision byFoster Parent A’s mother, who was the substitute caregiver andthe adult in the home responsible for supervision of the children.Foster Parent A was given a CAP and it was recommended thata regular license be continued. On 08/25/2013, the agencyopened a special evaluation in which Foster Parent A was found

to be in non-compliance with R 400. 9201 (i) and R 400.9404 (1)and (3) due to using physical discipline on a foster child. FosterParent A was given a CAP and it was recommended that aregular license be continued. On 08/21/2014, the agencyopened a special evaluation in which Foster Parent A was foundto be in non-compliance with R 400.9501 (2) (a) due to FosterParent A not reporting sexual abuse allegations into GeneseeCo. CPS. She was found to be in non-compliance with R400.9202 (e) due to lack of supervision by Foster Parent A’smother, who was the adult in the home who was responsible forsupervision. Foster Parent A was given a CAP and it was

recommended that a regular license be continued. On12/19/2014, the agency opened a special evaluation in whichFoster Parent A was found to be in non-compliance with R400.9411 (3) due to Foster Parent A admitting that she gave afoster child her medication to give to the new foster parent whengoing on a weekend visitation with the new foster parent. FosterParent A was found to be in non-compliance with R 400.9411(4) due to not administering the foster child’s prescribed


17/45

16

Risperdal for over a week as the medication was missing andFoster Parent A did not report this to the case manager. FosterParent A was given a CAP and a regular license wasrecommended.

The agency completed a special evaluation on Foster Home Bon 05/28/2015. Foster Home B was found to be in non-compliance with the following rules:

• R 400.9201 (j) (k) Foster home applicant/licenseequalifications due to lying about a retail fraud charge.

• R400.9301 (1) Maintenance due to the foster parenthaving broken glass on the front lawn.

• R400.9304 (1) (a) and (2) Smoke detectors; carbonmonoxide detectors due to the foster home not having acarbon monoxide detector and having no batteries for thesmoke detectors.

• R400.9306 (3) (b) and (d) Bedrooms due to a foster child,who had been in the home for a year, having no beddingfor the entire time he was in the home.

• R400.9310 (2) Smoking due to the foster parent cleaningaway ashes during the interview with the workers andasking them if they smelled smoke.

• R400.9413 (3) and (4) Substitute care. Upon arrival forthe investigation, the worker found the children alone withthe foster parent’s 13 year old relative providingsubstitute care.

• Rule 400.9414 (4) (f) Unusual incident notification due to

the foster mother failing to report the retail fraud anddriver’s license suspension.

• R400.9415 (2) Hazardous materials due to the fosterparent not having medication stored securely.

Foster Home B was provided with a CAP which was signed on06/01/2015 and it was recommended that her regular licensestatus continue.

Each special evaluation had significant licensing rule violations.However, the foster parents continued to have regular licenseswhen in fact a recommendation should have been made to

either issue a provisional license or revocation of their fosterhome license. The licensing recommendations that were madedemonstrated that there was no assessment of the fosterparents’ decision making skills when it comes to safely caringfor foster children.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED


18/45

17

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12303 Policy and procedures.

(1) An agency shall have and follow written policies andprocedures for assessing and certifying foster homes for

licensure. An agency may not have a policy related to certifyinghomes that violates Section 102 of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2102.

(2) Policies and procedures shall cover all of the following areasand be on forms provided, and in a manner prescribed, by thedepartment:(h) Foster parent/agency agreement.(j) ) Behavior management.(k) Religion.(l) ) Communication.

(m) Personal possessions.(n) Allowance and money.(o) Clothing.(p) Substitute care.(q) ) Supervision.(r) ) Hazardous materials.(s) Unusual incidents.(t) Emergency policy.

ANALYSIS: At the 08/05/2015 on-site visit, the Chief Administrator wasasked to provide the agency’s updated policy and procedures

manual due to there being new licensing rules which wereeffective on 01/05/2015. The Chief Administrator indicated thatshe was currently in the process of updating the agency’spolicies and procedures to reflect the changes of the new rules.


APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12312 Foster parent training.

(5) An agency shall document all training received by eachfoster parent.


19/45

18

ANALYSIS: The reevaluation report for Foster Home D states that the fosterparents received four hours each for watching the movie“Blindside.” The movie is not four hours long. The trainingrecords in the file list no training received for 2012 at all. Thereis no supporting documentation that indicates that any training

was received for 2012, including what is mentioned in the report.


APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12316 Foster parent training.

(3) The training specified in subrule (2)(a), and (b), of this ruleshall address all of the following areas:

(a) Characteristics and needs of children who may be placed

into the home.


20/45

19

ANALYSIS: Foster Child A was placed in Foster Parent A’s home on02/23/2015. Foster Parent A’s training log did not document thatFoster Parent A had received training pertaining to caring forchildren who have autism. Both the licensing worker andlicensing supervisor acknowledged that Foster Parent A had not

received training on autism. Per the rule, Foster Parent Ashould have been provided training that related to Foster Child A’s needs. At the very least, Foster Parent A should have beentrained on how to handle issues dealing with Foster Child A’scommunication skills, physical safety and self-care.

Foster Home E’s training completed in 2012 was the sametraining they completed in 2011. The foster parent watched thesame movie in 2012 that they watched in 2011. The trainingsthat foster parents complete should not include a repeat of amovie they watched. There should be a variety of training that

addresses all of the following areas:(a) Characteristics and needs of children who may be placedinto the home.(b) Safe sleep practices for infants.(c) Effective parenting.(d) Behavior management, including de-escalation techniques.(e) Importance of the foster child’s family.(f) ) Concurrent planning.(g) ) Role of the agency.(h) Emergency procedures, first aid, and fire safety.(i) ) Preparation of the foster child for permanence

and independence.(j) The role of the court and lawyer guardian ad litem inpermanency planning.


APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12319 Substitute care policy.

An agency’s substitute care policy shall, at a minimum, containprovisions for all of the following:

(a) Qualifications for substitute caregivers, consistent with therequirements of 1973 PA 116 and child care licensing rules.

ANALYSIS: There were no criminal history clearances and central registryclearances for the substitute caregivers for Foster Home E andFoster Home F.



21/45

20

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12324 Reevaluation.

(2) The annual reevaluation shall include a determination andassessment of all of the following:

(a) All changes to the factual information contained in theinitial evaluation and subsequent renewal evaluations.

ANALYSIS: It appears that the reports for Foster Home C are not beingupdated to reflect accurate information. The relocation study forFoster Home C says that they have no pets. The previousrenewal reevaluation says that they have 2 dogs, a fish and 2geckos. The relocation reevaluation does not mention thechanges in the number of pets. There was inconsistentreporting of the foster parent’s income. In the narrativeparagraphs of the income section of the reevaluation reports, it

says that the foster father in Foster Home C is employed at BRDconstruction and has a net income of $2800.00 per month.However, the lists of income and expenses all say that he isreceiving this amount as unemployment. The 2012 renewalreevaluation says he is receiving unemployment.


APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12324 Reevaluation.

(2) The annual reevaluation shall include a determination andassessment of all of the following:

(c) Training needs of the family.

ANALYSIS: The agency has not addressed the fact that for three years theyhave required Foster Home C to complete 2 hours of training onrights, role, and responsibilities of foster parents and FosterHome 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 onrights, role and responsibilities of foster parents and FosterHome D has not completed the training.

The agency has not addressed the fact that for three years theyhave required Foster Home E to complete 2 hours of training onrights, role and responsibilities of foster parents and FosterHome E has not completed the training.


22/45

21


APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12325 License recommendation.

(1) An agency shall recommend to the department theappropriate licensing action consistent with facts contained inthe foster home evaluation and any special evaluations.


23/45

22

ANALYSIS: Since 2012, the agency completed six special evaluations onFoster Parent A. Foster Parent A was found to be in non-compliance of licensing rules and provided with CAPs for four ofthe special evaluations. The 05/08/2012 special evaluation wasconcerning allegations of inappropriate sexual contact among

children that were in the home due to Foster Parent A’ssubstitute caregiver’s lack of supervision of the children. Inaddition, Foster Parent A failed to report the allegations to CPS.The 08/25/2013 special evaluation was concerning FosterParent A using physical discipline violating the agency’sdiscipline policy. The 08/21/2014 special evaluation wasconcerning allegations of inappropriate sexual contact amongthe children in the home due to Foster Parent A’s lack ofsupervision as well as Foster Parent A’s substitute caregiver’slack of supervision. Again, Foster Parent A failed to report theallegations to CPS.

The third special evaluation should have prompted the agencyto 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 ruleswhich could have jeopardized the health, safety, and care of thechildren placed in her home.

The fourth special evaluation, which occurred on12/19/2014,further shows Foster Parent A’s continuous lack of judgmentand inappropriate decision making skills when caring for

children placed in her home.

A special evaluation for Foster Home B was completed on06/01/2015. The agency failed to use the findings of thisinvestigation to make the correct recommendation, which shouldhave 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 motherwas shop lifting with the foster children and the stolen item washidden under a diaper bag. Her driver’s license was suspended,yet she was still driving. A foster child went without properlinens for a year. The foster parent demonstrated both willful andsubstantial non-compliance of foster home licensing ruleswhich could have jeopardized the health, safety, and care of thechildren placed in her home.

For Foster Home C, the age range on the BCAL-3706 form wasnot changed until October 2014 to state that the foster homewas licensed to accept children between the ages of 2-14 years


24/45

23

old.


APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.12325 License recommendation.

(3) Except for an original license, an agency shall recommend tothe department the issuance of a regular license or thecontinuation of an active license only when all rules are incompliance or both of the following conditions exist:

(b) A written corrective action plan has been developed. Theplan shall be in compliance with all of the followingrequirements:

(iii) Be signed and dated by the foster parent and theagency.

ANALYSIS: A CAP was developed as a result of the 12/19/2014 specialevaluation for Foster Parent A. The CAP was not signed byFoster Parent A. The agency’s Director of Adoption andPlacement stated that the licensing worker, who completed thespecial evaluation, reported that she mailed the CAP to FosterParent A, but never received the signed copy back.


APPLICABLE RULE

R 400.12327 Special evaluation.

(1) An agency shall do all of the following when anyone in theagency receives information that relates to possiblenoncompliance with any foster home rule:

(a) Submit a special investigation record to the department’slicensing authority within 5 working days in the mannerprescribed by the department.

(b) Initiate a special evaluation of the foster home as soon asis indicated, based on the information received, but not laterthan 7 calendar days after receipt of the information.

(c) Conduct a thorough investigation including all necessarycollateral contacts.

(d) Notify all social service workers who have children placedin the home that a special evaluation has been initiated.

(2) An agency shall inform foster parents of all of the followingbefore they are questioned or interviewed regarding a specialevaluation:


25/45

24

(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 theinvolvement does not impede the timely completion of the

evaluation.

(3) An agency shall complete a special evaluation within 45calendar days after receipt of the information. If additional timeis required, then the agency shall inform the foster parent, inwriting, of the basis for the extension and the expected length ofthe extension. The total time for the completion of theinvestigation shall not exceed 90 calendar days without writtenapproval 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 averbal summary of the preliminary findings at the conclusion ofthe evaluation.

(5) Within 15 days of the conclusion of the evaluation, anagency shall complete a written report that includes all of thefollowing 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 areinterviewed, 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 specificcharacteristics of children who may be placed that is basedupon the documentation contained in the summary andconclusions of the report.

(h) Recommendations regarding licensing action and anyrequired 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


26/45

25

completion.(b) Inform the foster parent, in writing, that he or she has a

right to have his or her written response included as anattachment 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 correctiveaction plan, all social service workers who have children placedin the home shall be notified there is a corrective action plan andwhat is required of the foster parent in that plan.

ANALYSIS: In March 2015, the agency’s licensing worker was made awarethat Foster Parent A had received power of attorney of a childand that the child was living in the home. Foster Parent A wasin violation of foster home licensing rule 400.9502 Reporting

foster home changes (c) due to her not informing the agency ofthe change of household composition. The agency failed toopen a special evaluation to address this non-compliance of thefoster home licensing rule.

A special evaluation should have been completed for FosterHome A in September 2014 regarding the allegations that weremade. There is no known information about the other time ortimes the babysitter was drinking. A special evaluation wouldhave addressed answered questions such as were the childrenin danger while she was babysitting and was she driving the

children while intoxicated. The foster father is a cross countrytruck driver and the foster mother works outside of the home asa nurse. The home is licensed for six. The foster mother needsa reliable substitute care giver. The agency’s failure to lookfurther into this placed the children at risk.

The May 2012 renewal reevaluation for Foster Home Eindicated that on the day of the home visit for the renewal thefoster parent informed the licensing worker that her daughtermoved back into the home on 01/12/2012. A special evaluationwas not opened for the non-compliance of the licensing rule for

not notifying the agency of the change in household members.



27/45

26

ALLEGATION#2:

The following information has not been entered in MiSACWIS and/or has not beenprovided to Oakland Co. MDHHS:

Foster Child A1. Dental exam2. Placement Exception Request (PER) for Foster Parent A as there were more than 6children in the foster home.3. Initial Service Plan (ISP) and Updated Service Plan (USP)4. Updated school records5. No face to face visits entered in MiSACWIS since April 2015

Foster Child B1. Medical and dental exam

2. Family Team Meeting (FTM) for change of placement3. ISP and USP4. Relative licensing waiver5. Change of placement documents6. Updated school records7. No face to face visits entered in MiSACWIS since April 2015

Foster Child C1. Updated school records2. Medical and dental exam3. FTM for change of placement

4. Relative licensing waiver5. Change of placement documents6. No face to face visits entered in MiSACWIS since April 20157. ISP and USP

Foster Child D1. Medical and dental exam2. Relative home study3. Relative licensure referral or relative licensing waiver4. Change of placement documents. MDHHS and GAL were not notified of Foster ChildD’s change of placement.

5. Social work contacts beginning on 03/18/20156. FTM for change of placement7. ISP


28/45

27

INVESTIGATION:

A review of Foster Child A’s agency case file and his case on MiSACWIS showed thefollowing:

• 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 thatthe helpdesk ticket had been resolved, which allowed Ms. Nolen-Winfield tocomplete 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 containany updated educational records.

• A face to face visit with Foster Child A took place on 04/10/2015 and it wasentered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child A tookplace on 05/20/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/20/2015. A face toface visit with Foster Child A took place on 06/10/2015 and it was entered inMiSACWIS 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 inMiSACWIS.

• The ISP for reporting period 02/23/2015 to 03/24/2015 was completed on07/10/2015. 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 thatthe helpdesk ticket had been resolved, which allowed Ms. Nolen-Winfield tocomplete the ISP.

• The USP for report period 03/25/2015 to 06/22/2015 was in progress status inMiSACWIS.

• A relative home study for Foster Child B’s relative placement was not in the filenor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.


29/45

28

• The relative licensing waiver was signed by the relative and supervisoron03/17/2015. The PAFC Director signed the waiver on 03/20/2015. The waiverwas not approved by the Child Welfare County Director.

• The relative caregiver did not sign the DHS-972, Foster Home LicensingRequirements for Relative Caregivers.

• The DHS-30, Foster Parent Notice and the DHS-31, Foster Care PlacementDecision Notice were completed on 06/30/2015. These forms were not uploadedin MiSACWIS.

• A DHS-69 Foster Care/Juvenile Justice Action Summary to document thechange of placement to Foster Child B’s relative home was not in the case filenor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.

• A face to face visit with Foster Child B took place on 04/28/2015 and it wasentered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child Btook place on 05/20/2015 and was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. A faceto 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 thefollowing:

• 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 inMiSACWIS.

• 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 waiverwas not approved by the Child Welfare County Director.

• The DHS-30, Foster Parent Notice and the DHS-31, Foster Care PlacementDecision Notice were completed on 06/30/2015. These forms were not uploadedin MiSACWIS.

• A DHS-69 Foster Care/Juvenile Justice Action Summary to document thechange 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 thatthe helpdesk ticket had been resolved, which allowed Ms. Nolen-Winfield tocomplete the ISP.


30/45

29

• A face to face visit with Foster Child C took place on 04/28/2015 and wasentered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child Ctook place on 05/20/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015. Aface to face visit with Foster Child C took place on 06/10/2015 and it was enteredin MiSACWIS on 07/06/2015.

A review of Foster Child D’s agency case file and his case on MiSACWIS showed thefollowing:

• A medical exam was completed for Foster Child D; however, there is no date onthe medical exam to verify when it was completed. The medical exam form is notuploaded 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 homestudy for Foster Child D’s current relative placement was signed on 06/01/2015by Ms. Vyvyan and was not signed by a supervisor. Brad Dixon, Director of

Adoption & Placement Services, was typed where the supervisor’s signatureshould have been signed. The relative home study was entered in MiSACWISon 06/16/2015.

• The DHS-30, Foster Parent Notice and the DHS-31, Foster Care PlacementDecision Notice were completed on 06/12/2015. These forms were not uploadedin MiSACWIS. Social work contacts did not document that MDHHS was notifiedabout the change of placement occurring before Foster Child D was placed withhis relative.

• A court report dated 06/09/2015 indicated that a home study for Foster Child D’srelative was completed and that the plan was for Foster Child D to be placed withthis relative on 06/12/2015 after the school year.

• A DHS-69 Foster Care/Juvenile Justice Action Summary to document thechange of placement to Foster Child D’s relative home was not in the case filenor was it uploaded in MiSACWIS.

• A face to face visit with Foster Child D took place on 04/10/2015 and wasentered in MiSACWIS on 06/24/2015. A face to face visit with Foster Child Dtook place on 05/20/2015 and it was entered in MiSACWIS on 06/24/2015. Aface to face visit with Foster Child D took place on 06/12/2015 and it was enteredin MiSACWIS on 06/24/2015.

• A FTM for Foster Child D’s change of placement to his relative’s home isdocumented 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 inMiSACWIS.

• The ISP was completed in MiSACWIS on 04/30/2015. The ISP has not beenuploaded in MiSACWIS.

• The USP was due 06/22/2015 and it was completed 06/24/2015. The USP wasuploaded in MiSACWIS on 07/07/2015.


31/45

30

On 07/14/2015, Geneva Harvey, Alternatives for Children & Families' Director of Clinicaland Casework Services, was interviewed on-site. Ms. Harvey reported that the ISP forFoster Child A and his siblings was completed late due to there being an issue withMiSACWIS. She reported that Foster Child A did not receive a dental exam becausethe dentist said that he was not equipped with appropriate staff to be able to deal with

his behaviors during the dental exam. Ms. Harvey reported that there was nodocumentation of the dentist making this statement. She reported that Foster B wastaken to his medical appointment by Foster Parent F; however, there is nodocumentation that the medical exam was completed. Ms. Harvey reported that therelative home study for Foster B and Foster C’s placement was uploaded in MiSACWIS.Ms. Harvey reported that at the time of Foster B and Foster C’s placement withrelatives, the relative stated that she did not want to be licensed. She reported that toher knowledge the relative signed a relative licensing waiver.

On 07/20/2015, Kristen Nolen-Winfield, Alternatives for Children & Families' Foster CareWorker, was interviewed on-site. Ms. Nolen-Winfield reported that she has been the

assigned worker for Foster Child A, Foster Child B, Foster Child C and Foster Child Dsince they were placed with Alternatives for Children & Families in February 2015. Shereported that her face to face visits with the children have been entered in MiSACWIS.Ms. Nolen-Winfield reported that when Foster Child A was placed in Foster Parent A’shome there were four adopted children in the home in addition to Foster Child A andFoster Child B. Once Foster Child B was placed with his relative, another child whomFoster Parent A had power of attorney of moved into the home. Ms. Nolen-Winfieldreported that while Foster Child A was placed in Foster Parent A’s home there were nosafety or supervision issues. She stated that Foster Parent A learned Foster Child A’sbehaviors quickly. Foster Child A was having issues with sleeping at night and FosterParent A expressed her concerns with the psychiatrist, Dr. Ellen Johnson. Dr. Johnsonprescribed him medication and he was sleeping better. Ms. Nolen-Winfield stated thatFoster Child A did not have a dental exam and she could not provide an answer as towhy he did not have a dental exam completed. She reported that the ISP wascompleted late due to a MiSACWIS issue. The USP was completed during the week ofJuly 13th; however, her supervisor returned it to her with corrections. Ms. Nolen-Winfield reported that information regarding educational updates was entered in socialwork contacts. She reported that she did not receive report cards for the foster children.She stated that she believed that Foster Child B had a medical and dental exam. Ms.Nolen-Winfield reported that a FTM for Foster Child B and Foster Child C’s change ofplacement occurred, however, she cannot locate the FTM paperwork. She stated thatDHHS was not notified about the change of placement for Foster Child B and FosterChild C. Ms. Nolen-Winfield reported that at the 06/09/2015 court hearing she reportedto the court about the plan to move Foster Child D with his relative. Ms. Nolen-Winfieldstated that the LGAL was present at the hearing; however, she is unsure if the OaklandCo. DHHS Foster Care Monitor was present at the court hearing. She stated that shedoes not recall if the Oakland Co. DHHS Foster Care Monitor was notified about FosterChild D’s change of placement. She stated that she does not know if there is aprocedure on how DHHS is supposed to be notified regarding change of placements.She reported that the relative home study for Foster Child B and Foster Child C’s


32/45

31

current placement has been uploaded in MiSACWIS. She reported that the change ofplacement forms were completed for Foster Child B and Foster Child C. Ms. Nolen-Winfield stated that Foster Child B and Foster Child C’s current relative placement didnot sign a relative licensing waiver and they were not referred for licensure.

On 07/20/2015, Brad Dixon, Director of Adoption & Placement Services, wasinterviewed on-site. Mr. Dixon reviewed the placements for Foster Parent A with thisLicensing Consultant, which are as follows:

Foster Child E was placed in the home from 01/06/2015 to 05/14/2015.Foster Child A was placed in the home from 02/23/2015 to 07/04/2015.Foster Child B was placed in the home from 02/23/2015 to 04/28/2015.Foster Child F was placed in the home from 05/28/2015 to 07/06/2015.

Foster Parent A’s three adopted children lived in the home as well as the child whomshe had power of attorney of beginning in 03/03/2015. Mr. Dixon agreed that there was

a period of time where there were more than six children in Foster Parent A’s home anda PER should have been requested.

APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12413 Medical and dental care policy.

(1) An agency's medical and dental care policy shall, at aminimum, include all of the following:

(c) A physical examination for each child as follows, unless agreater frequency is medically indicated:

(i) ) For a child under 2 years of age, a physical

examination shall have been completed within 3 months beforebeing placed in foster care or a new physical examination shallbe completed within 30 calendar days after being placed infoster care.

(ii) For a child 2 years of age or older, a physicalexamination shall have been completed within 12 months beforeplacement or a new physical examination shall be completedwithin 30 calendar days after placement.

(iii) ysical examination every 14 months.(f) The provision of a dental examination and any treatment

required for each child who is 4 years of age and older,

including both of the following:(i) ) A dental examination within 12 months beforeplacement or a new dental examination shall be completed notmore than 90 calendar days after placement.

(ii) A dental reexamination shall be obtained at least every18 months, unless a greater frequency is indicated.


33/45

32

ANALYSIS: Foster Child A did not receive a dental exam within 90 calendardays after placement. Foster Child B did not receive a medicalexam within 30 calendar days after being placed in foster careand he did not receive a dental exam within 90 calendar daysafter placement. Foster Child C did not receive a medical exam

within 30 calendar days after being placed in foster care and hedid not receive a dental exam within 90 calendar days afterplacement. A medical exam was completed for Foster Child D;however, there is no date on the medical exam to verify when itwas completed. The medical exam form was not uploaded inMiSACWIS. Foster Child D did not have a dental exam.


APPLICABLE RULE MSA X B 3 Placement Limitations.

DHS shall make placement decisions pursuant to DHSplacement selection criteria. Limitations on Number ofChildren in Foster Home: No child shall be placed in a fosterhome if that placement will result in more than three fosterchildren in that foster home, or a total of six children, includingthe foster family’s birth and/or adopted children. No placementshall result in more than three children under the age of threeresiding in a foster home. Exceptions to these limitations may bemade, on an individual basis, documented in the case file, whenin the best interest of the child(ren) being placed, as follows: a.

In a Designated County, by the county Child Welfare Director;b. In any other county, by the County Director.

ANALYSIS: After reviewing Foster Parent A’s placement list and theinterview with Brad Dixon, Director of Adoption & PlacementServices, it was confirmed that there was a period of time wherethere were more than six children in Foster Parent A’s home. APER for Foster Parent A having more than six total children inher home should have been requested.


APPLICABLE RULE R 400.12418 Development of service plans.

(2) An agency shall complete written service plans for each childand parent or parents, as follows:

(a) Within 30 calendar days from removal from the home.(b) Within 120 calendar days after the initial removal and at


34/45

33

least once every 90 calendar days thereafter.

ANALYSIS: The ISP for Foster Child A, Foster Child B and Foster Child Cwas not completed within 30 calendar days from removal fromthe home. Kristin Nolen-Winfield, Alternatives for Children &

Families' Foster Care Worker, reported that there was an issuewith MiSACWIS, which prevented her from completing the ISPon time. An email from Ms. Nolen-Winfield to Alisia Johnson,Oakland Co. DHHS PAFC Monitoring Worker, dated 05/13/2015indicated that the helpdesk ticket had been resolved, whichallowed Ms. Nolen-Winfield to complete the ISP. The ISP wascompleted on 07/10/2015, which is 58 days after the MiSACWISissue was resolved. At the time of the interview with Ms. Nolen-Winfield, the USP for Foster Child A, Foster Child B and FosterChild C was pending approval as Ms. Nolen-Winfield needed tomake corrections that her supervisor gave her.

The ISP for Foster Child D was not completed within 30calendar days from removal from the home. The ISP was dueon 03/24/2015 and it was completed on 04/30/2015. At the timeof the interview with Ms. Nolen-Winfield, the ISP had not beenentered in MiSACWIS. The USP for Foster Child was notcompleted within 120 calendar days after the initial removal.The USP was due on 06/22/2015 and it was completed on06/24/2015.


APPLICABLE RULE DHHS PolicyFOM 723

Educational Services: Updated Educational Information.

Updated school information is required in all case service plans.The narrative must reflect the child’s current academicachievements and challenges. All case service plans mustdocument or address the following items:• Name of current school and grade.

• A reassessment of the child’s educational needs andstrengths documented each report period in the Child Assessment of Needs and Strengths.• Special education information, if applicable.• Child’s current academic performance and behaviors inschool.• Description of provided services from school, parent,foster parent/caregiver and/or others to meet the child’s


35/45

34

educational needs.• Document the child’s full-time elementary or secondaryschool attendance with a statement that the child is a full-timestudent, has completed secondary education or is incapable ofattending school on a full-time basis due to the child’s medical

condition.

ANALYSIS: There was no updated school information for Foster Child A,Foster Child B, Foster Child C and Foster Child D in the casefiles or in MiSACWIS.


APPLICABLE RULE DHHS PolicyFOM 722-06H

Caseworker Contacts: Timely Entry of CaseworkerContacts and Caseworker Contact with Child in Out-of-

Home Placement: First Two Months after Initial Placementor a Placement Move.

All caseworker contacts must be entered in MiSACWIS; thisincludes attempted contacts and missed appointments, and allpertinent information obtained must be summarized andincluded in the appropriate section of the case service plan.

All face-to-face contacts must be entered in MiSACWIS, withinfive business days of the contact. This includes the following:• Any face-to-face contacts with children, parents, orcaregivers made by any of the following:

Foster care worker.CPS worker. Adoption worker.Permanency resource monitors.

• Parent/child face-to-face contacts.• Sibling/child face-to-face contacts.

All other social work contacts must be entered prior to the reportperiod end date on the applicable case service plan.

The caseworker must have at least two face-to-face contactsper month with the child for the first two months following an

initial placement or a placement move. The first face-to-facecontact with the child must take place within five business daysfrom the date the case is assigned to the caseworker or withinfive business days of the date of the placement move. At leastone contact each month must take place at the child’splacement location. Each contact must include a private meetingbetween the child and the caseworker.


36/45

35

ANALYSIS: The face-to-face visits for Foster Child A, Foster Child B, FosterChild C and Foster Child D were entered in MiSACWIS morethan five business days of the contact occurring. A face-to-facevisit with Foster Child B in June 2015 was not entered inMiSACWIS.

The foster care worker did not complete at least two face-to-facecontacts per month with Foster Child B, Foster Child C andFoster Child D for the first two months following there placementmove with relatives.


APPLICABLE RULE MSA VII D 1b Family Team Meetings.

The following events shall trigger FTM for out of home cases:• Case service plan development• permanency goal changes• placement preservation/disruption• permanency planning at six months in care• annual transition planning for youth every six monthsfrom age 16 until case closure• 90 day discharge planning for youth• Case closure

ANALYSIS: A FTM for Foster Child B and Foster Child C’s change of

placement to their relative’s home is documented in MiSACWIShaving been completed on 04/23/2015. However, a DHS-1105,Family Team Meeting Report, was not in the file nor was ituploaded in MiSACWIS. A FTM for Foster Child D’s change ofplacement to his relative’s home is documented in MiSACWIShaving been completed on 06/12/2015. However, a DHS-1105,Family Team Meeting Report, was not in the file nor was ituploaded in MiSACWIS.

There was no documentation of FTMs being completed for caseservice plan development for any of the foster care cases.


APPLICABLE RULE DHHS PolicyFOM 722-03B

Relative Engagement and Placement: Placement withRelatives & Relative Licensure.

The DHS-3130A, Relative Placement Home Study, is used to


37/45

36

complete the required home assessment for children placedwith unlicensed relative caregivers. The DHS-3130A, RelativePlacement Home Study, must be completed within the timeframes described below.• For initial placements, within 30 calendar days of the

child’s placement in the relative home.• For placement changes, prior to placement in the relativehome.• For all other requests, within 60 days of the writtenrequest for consideration.

Anytime a placement is made, the caseworker must discusslicensure with the caregiver. The discussion of licensure mustinclude completion of the DHS-972, Foster Home LicensingRequirements for Relative Caregivers. The caregiver is requiredto sign the DHS-972, and indicate if they are interested in

pursuing or wish to waive licensure. For placement moves, thecaseworker must have the caregiver sign the DHS-972, FosterHome Licensing Requirements for Relative Caregivers, prior toplacement.

To request a waiver, the assigned caseworker must completethe DHS-875, Relative Caregiver Waiver of Licensure, with therelative. The caseworker must scan the DHS-875, RelativeCaregiver Waiver of Licensure, into MiSACWIS. Thecaseworker must send it and the approved DHS-3130A,Relative Home Assessment, through the electronic approval

process in MiSACWIS. The waiver must receive finalapproval/denial within 30 calendar days of the request date.Note: The request date is the date the relative signs the DHS-875, Relative Caregiver Waiver of Licensure.

Approval Path for Placement Agency Foster Care Provider:The PAFC caseworker must forward the DHS-875 and DHS-3130A, to the PAFC supervisor for approval.If approved, the PAFC supervisor must forward the forms to thePAFC director for approval.If approved, the forms must be forwarded to one of the followingDHS directors for final approval:• In a designated county, the child welfare director.• In any other county, the county director.Note: The waiver must be scanned into MiSACWIS and signedby the relative annually; see Annual Review in this item.

ANALYSIS: A relative home study for Foster Child B and Foster Child C’srelative placement was not in the file nor was it uploaded in


38/45

37

MiSACWIS. Ms. Nolen-Winfield reported that the relative homestudy had been completed; however, the actual form could notbe located. The relative home study for Foster Child D wascompleted on 05/13/2015 by Ms. Vyvyan, Alternatives forChildren & Families’ licensing worker. The relative home study

for Foster Child D’s current relative placement was signed on06/01/2015 by Ms. Vyvyan and was not signed by a supervisor.Brad Dixon, Director of Adoption & Placement Services, wastyped where the supervisor’s signature should have beensigned. The relative home study was entered in MiSACWIS on06/16/2015.

The relative caregivers for Foster Child B, Foster Child C andFoster Child D did not sign the DHS-972, Foster HomeLicensing Requirements for Relative Caregivers form.

The DHS-875, Relative Caregiver Waiver of Licensure form forthe relative placement for Foster Child B and Foster Child C wassigned by the relative caregiver and agency’s foster caresupervisor on 03/17/2015. The agency’s Director signed thewaiver form on 03/20/2015. However, the waiver was notapproved by Oakland Co. Child Welfare Director.


APPLICABLE RULE DHHS Policy

FOM 722-03

Placement Selection and Standards: Foster Care Placement

Decis ion Notice & Placement Change.

MCL 722.954a, requires the supervising agency to make aplacement decision and document in writing the reason for thedecision within 90 days of the child's removal from his or herhome.

Child Placing Agency Rule 400.12405 requires that thecaregiver be notified of the intent to move the child 14 days priorto the intended date of the move unless the child’s health and

safety is jeopardized. The DHS-30, Foster Parent Notice, mustbe used to notify the caregiver and the Foster Care ReviewBoard (FCRB) of the intent to move the child.

The caseworker must make the placement decision anddocument the reason for the decision on the DHS-31, FosterCare Placement Decision Notice.The DHS-31, Foster Care Placement Decision Notice, must be


39/45

38

sent to all of the following:• Child's attorney, guardian, and/or guardian ad litem(LGAL).• The prosecutor.• Mother.

• Father.• The attorney(s) for the child's mother and father.• Each relative who expresses an interest in caring for thechild.• Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA).• The child if the child is old enough to be able to expressan opinion regarding placement.

The DHS-69, Foster Care/Juvenile Justice Action Summary,must be completed prior to any placement change and mustinclude:

• Reasons for the placement change

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wxyz-tv-channel-7-detroit
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Report on Omarion Humphrey

Documents