STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF GUILFORD 02 DHR 1885

______

Mary A. Johnson )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) DECISION )

N.C. Department Of Health and )

Human Services )

Respondent. )

______

THIS MATTER came on for hearing before the undersigned Beryl E. Wade, Administrative Law Judge on February 24, 2003, in High Point, North Carolina. The Petitioner, Mary A. Johnson, appeared pro se. The Respondent was represented by Ms. Jane Rankin Thompson, Assistant Attorney General.

ISSUE

Did the Respondent properly revoke Petitioner’s family foster home license based on a finding by the Guilford County Department of Social Services that Petitioner had neglected children in her care?

Based upon official documents in the file, sworn testimony of the witnesses, and other competent and admissible evidence, the court makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In June 2002, the Petitioner, Mary Johnson, was a foster parent with Youth Unlimited, a nonprofit agency that provides foster care and group home care for children. She resided in Greensboro, North Carolina, and had two foster children in her home, Angel and Tiffany. Tiffany had lived with her since August 2000 and Angel since January 2001. In November 2001, her adult son Quintin Jordan also began living with her because he was going through a divorce. Mrs. Johnson was required to notify Youth Unlimited of any adult living in her home, but she did not tell her caseworker, Kathy Knitt, that her son was living with her.

2. On Saturday, June 2, Angel and Tiffany invited their friend Constance, another foster child who lived nearby, to spend the night. Mr. Jordan returned home around 11:00 p.m. The girls were still awake, and Mrs. Johnson was in her room ready for bed. On Sunday, June 3, the girls were taken to church by Mrs. Seagraves, the foster mother of Constance. Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Jordan went to their churches that morning as well. Around 1:15 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Seagraves returned with the girls and told Mrs. Johnson that Mr. Jordan had inappropriately touched Constance the night before and that the same thing had happened before to Angel. Constance herself spoke to Mrs. Johnson and repeated the allegations. Mrs. Johnson responded only that she needed to talk to her son and went to get him from his church. Mrs. Seagraves then called both the police and Guilford DSS.

3. Mrs. Johnson returned to her home with her son and called her caseworker, Kathy Knitt, to tell her the police were at her house to investigate these allegations. Tiffany and Angel had left her home and gone to stay with Mrs. Seagraves.

4. Mary Allred, a child protective services investigator with the Guilford County Department of Social Services, was assigned to investigate the report of child neglect against Mrs. Johnson on Monday, June 4, 2002. She learned that the investigation had been initiated by the on-call social worker, Dana White, on Sunday, June 3, and that the children had also been interviewed by Detective Hines with the Greensboro Police Department earlier on June 4. Detective Hines provided her with a copy of the girls’ statements in which Constance alleged that Mr. Jordan had touched her breasts and vagina on top of her clothes and rubbed against her private parts while they were sitting on the couch watching television. Mrs. Johnson was in her bedroom at the time. Angel stated Mr. Jordan had done this to her before, but she had not told anyone other than her aunt who lived in Raleigh. Detective Hines confirmed that the aunt had been told about this by Angel, but had not told anyone.

5. Ms. Allred spoke to the girls on June 5 at Mrs. Seagraves’ home where they were staying until another placement was found for them. She did not try to re-interview them, but asked if they had anything to add to the statements they gave to Detective Hines, and they said they did not. She spoke to their social workers and learned that Angel and Tiffany liked living with Mrs. Johnson, and her home was near the adoptive home of their younger brother. Constance had not expressed any problems with Mrs. Johnson. None of the girls had made false allegation previously and had not been sexually abused in their birth homes.

6. Ms. Allred interviewed Mrs. Johnson who did not believe the girls. She felt if they were telling the truth, Angel would have told her as soon as it happened. She believed since her son had not molested his own 11 year old daughter, he would not molest these girls. Ms. Allred concluded that it was not safe for Angel and Tiffany to return to Mrs. Johnson’s home, or for other children to be placed with her.

7. Mr. Jordan was also interviewed by Ms. Allred. He had been scheduled to take a polygraph test, but told her the examiner said even horseplay would show up as inappropriate touching, and that he had engaged in horseplay with the girls, but had never touched them inappropriately. On that Saturday night, he came home, got a drink, and told Constance who was lying on the couch to move over so he could sit down. She took his cup and he told her to give it back because she did not know what was in it. He fell asleep on the couch and the girls took showers. Later they asked him to move over on the couch. He never touched their private parts and did not know why they would say he did. He was in the process of getting a divorce, and that was all he could focus on at the moment.

8. On June 28, 2002, the case was staffed by Ms. Allred, her supervisor, and two other social workers. They substantiated child neglect against Mrs. Johnson. They found the girls statements to be consistent and credible. They found Mrs. Johnson’s behavior created an unsafe environment for these girls or any future foster children because she had put her concerns about her son ahead of the needs of her foster children. This substantiation decision was communicated to the Division of Social Services, which sent Mrs. Johnson a Notice of Administrative Action dated September 4, 2002. This Notice revoked her family foster home license and notified her of her appeal rights. The Notice stated the substantiation of neglect was based on her failure to report the incident of alleged sexual abuse by her son and the fact she did not behave in a protective manner toward the foster children.

9. In her testimony, Mrs. Johnson admitted she did not believe the foster children and that she insisted on going to pick up her son from his church before notifying anyone of the allegations. The only person she notified was her caseworker at Youth Unlimited, Kathy Knitt, after the police had arrived. She testified that Tiffany, the younger of her two foster children, had called her later and said Mr. Jordan had never touched her. Mrs. Johnson did not ask Tiffany about her son and the other children and never told Ms. Allred about her conversation with Tiffany. Moreover, she testified that her son moved out the day the allegations were made and went to live with his brother, but admitted she never communicated this fact to Ms. Allred.

10. Kathy Knitt, Mrs. Johnson’s case manager at Youth Unlimited, testified that she received a phone call from Mrs. Johnson on Sunday, June 3, 2002, telling her that the police were at her home and that sexual abuse allegations had been made against her son. Ms. Knitt had met Mr. Jordan on some of her weekly visits to Mrs. Johnson’s home, but was unaware he was living there in violation of her license.

11. Mr. Jordan has been charged with taking indecent liberties with a minor, but his case has not yet come to trial.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Respondent has shown by substantial evidence that Guilford County Department of Social Services appropriately conducted the protective services investigation involving the Petitioner and appropriately found Petitioner to have neglected her foster children by not immediately contacting Guilford DSS or law enforcement and protecting her foster children after learning of the allegations against her son.

2. The action of the Respondent in revoking Petitioner’s family foster home license was proper and should be upheld based on this neglect substantiation.

DECISION

The Department of Health and Human Services will make the final decision in this contested case. It is recommended that the agency adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above and affirm its decision to revoke the Petitioner’s family foster home license.

NOTICE

The Department of Health and Human Services will make the final decision in this contested case. The agency will give the parties the right to file exceptions to this recommended decision and to present written arguments to the agency. The agency will serve a copy of the final decision on the parties, the attorneys of record and the Office of Administrative Hearings.

This the 13th day of March, 2003.

______

Beryl E. Wade

Administrative Law Judge