STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF MOORE 08 DHR 0631

RONALD LEE YOUNG, JR. )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) DECISION

)

N.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH )

AND HUMAN SERVICES )

Respondent. )

THIS MATTER came on for hearing on June 26, 2008, before Shannon R. Joseph, Administrative Law Judge, in High Point, North Carolina. Petitioner, Ronald Young, Jr., appeared pro se. Respondent was represented by Jane R. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General. An Order on final pre-trial conference was signed by the parties and the undersigned on June 26, 2008.

ISSUE

Did Respondent properly revoke Petitioner’s therapeutic foster home license for lack of compliance with foster home licensing rules?

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner was licensed by Respondent as a therapeutic foster parent on August 14, 2007, through Cardinal Clinic in Southern Pines. To be licensed, Petitioner completed over 50 hours of required training.

2. One child, a 13 year-old boy, was placed with Petitioner on September 21, 2007. The boy moved to a group home on November 8, 2007.

3. Around November 15, 2007, an employee of Cardinal Clinic searched the MySpace website to see if Petitioner had a site there. A site with his name was found, and the public page had an icon titled “pictures” that could be viewed and copied by anyone. A total of seven (7) pictures of Petitioner were on the site, four (4) of which were nude photographs, and in one (1) nude photograph Petitioner is holding a rifle.

4. The employee who found the pictures informed Cardinal Clinic. Before Cardinal Clinic contacted him, Petitioner learned of the pictures and came to the Cardinal Clinic office on November 23, 2007. He viewed the pictures on a computer there and spoke by phone with Barbara Rich, supervisor of therapeutic homes.

5. By letter dated November 29, 2007, Cardinal Clinic informed Petitioner that his actions violated the Clinic’s Code of Conduct, and his license would be terminated.

6. On December 3, 2007, Petitioner brought a letter to the Cardinal Clinic office from his ex-girlfriend, Wanda Jones, stating she had created the imposter site and had posted the pictures without Petitioner’s knowledge. Petitioner also brought a letter to Dr. Ted Lane, Director of Cardinal Clinic, asserting that Petitioner had not been given a fair opportunity to respond before receiving Cardinal Clinic’s termination letter and stating that he had not known these pictures were on the internet. Petitioner in fact has his own MySpace web page that does not display the photographs at issue.

7. Petitioner also provided Cardinal Clinic with an e-mail to MySpace, asking that the imposter site be closed. A subsequent e-mail from MySpace dated December 6, 2007, confirmed that the site had been deleted.

8. The last login date on the imposter MySpace page, which reflects when the person posting the information on the site edited its content, was October 18, 2006. Thus, the photographs had been available on the internet since at least October 2006.

9. Cardinal Clinic contacted Respondent’s Division of Social Services licensing unit located in Black Mountain and learned that “termination” of a license meant both the agency and foster parent were in agreement it should terminate. Cardinal Clinic then requested that Petitioner’s license instead be revoked, and issued two memoranda, dated December 3, 2007, and January 10, 2008, in support of the request.

10. The January 10, 2008 memorandum observed that, even if Petitioner was not aware that his pictures were on the internet, his behavior was inappropriate for a therapeutic foster parent.

11. Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Administrative action dated February 25, 2008 revoking his license based on non-compliance with its licensing rules, specifically 10A NCAC 70E .1104, “Criteria for the Family.” Section 10A NCAC 70E .1104 requires that foster parents be persons whose circumstances and health are conducive to the safety and well-being of children. Petitioner appealed this revocation in a timely manner by filing a Petition for Contested Case Hearing on March 7, 2008.

12. Petitioner testified on his own behalf. He was concerned that the imposter site was found by a Cardinal Clinic employee who was personally interested in him, not someone with whom he worked. He was also concerned about the lack of privacy in the investigation of the site and that he found out about it from other Cardinal Clinic employees, instead of Barbara Rich.

13. Petitioner admitted that the nude photographs were taken about five (5) or six years (6) ago by a former girlfriend and that she had possession of the pictures after they ended their relationship. He admitted that he did not know when the photographs were actually posted on the internet and that the nude pictures were inappropriate for a foster child, or any child, to view.

14. Petitioner reiterated that he did not create the MySpace website displaying the nude pictures: this testimony was credible.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent acted erroneously in revoking his therapeutic foster home license.

2. Respondent acted reasonably in determining that Petitioner was in violation of the licensing rule, 10A NCAC 70E .1104, by allowing nude photographs of himself holding a firearm to be taken and to remain in the possession of another person so that they could be disseminated without his consent or knowledge through a MySpace account or any other public or private means.

3. Moreover, that the photographs in fact were disseminated and Petitioner cannot control or restrict their further distribution, including assuring that teenage children he might foster would not somehow come into possession of the photographs, further supports Respondent’s conduct in revoking Petitioner’s license.

DECISION

The Department of Health and Human Services will make the final decision in this contested case. It is hereby decided that the agency’s decision to revoke Petitioner’s foster home license should be upheld.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative Hearings, in accordance with N.C.G.S. 150B-36(b3).

NOTICE

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this contested case will be reviewed by the agency making the final decision according to standards found in N.C.G.S. 150B-36(b), (b1) and (b2). The agency making the final decision is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and to present written argument to those in the agency who will make the final decision. N.C.G.S. 150B-36(a).

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

This the 21st day of July, 2008.

______

Shannon R. Joseph

Administrative Law Judge