State of North Carolina s73

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF GUILFORD 04 DHR 0950

LAUREN ROBINSON ) GIFTON ROBINSON ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) DECISION ) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT ) OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ) Respondent. )

This matter came on for hearing of Respondent’s motion for summary judgment before Sammie Chess, Jr., Administrative Law Judge, on February 2, 2006, via conference call. The Respondent was represented by Jane R. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General. Lauren Robinson participated in the conference call pro se. Gifton Robinson did not participate.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioners Lauren and Gifton Robinson were jointly licensed by the Respondent as a therapeutic family foster care home for the Children’s Home Society on March 1, 2003. That license was issued for a two year period ending March 1, 2005.

2. By Notice of Administrative Action dated April 30, 2004, Respondent informed Petitioners that their joint family foster home license was being revoked due to a determination by Guilford County Department of Social Services that Gifton Robinson had sexually abused a foster child in their home. This Notice duly informed the Petitioners of their appeal rights.

3. A Petition for a contested case hearing was timely filed by the Petitioners in the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 7, 2004. The Petitioners alleged that the allegations that led to the Guilford DSS substantiation of sexual abuse were made by their foster child, Alexis W., and that those allegations were false.

4. On June 7, 2004, the Petitioner Gifton Robinson was also charged with three criminal sexual offenses as a result of the criminal investigation into this matter, and the Petitioners requested that any OAH hearing on their foster home license be delayed until after the resolution of the criminal matter.

5. Due to numerous continuances in the criminal matter, a hearing was scheduled before the undersigned judge on September 27, 2005. The Petitioners did not appear at the hearing, and the hearing was continued since the criminal case was expected to proceed the week of October 3, 2005. -2-

6. Mr. Robinson’s criminal case did come to trial on October 6, 2005, and he was convicted of all three sexual offenses with his foster child, Alexis W. Mr. Robinson was sentenced to a prison term of between 185 and 231 months with the North Carolina Department of Corrections. He is presently incarcerated.

7. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on October 31, 2005, alleging the Guilford Superior Court conviction fully determined the issues of this case by convicting Gifton Robinson of the offenses which were the basis for the Guilford DSS abuse substantiation. The Respondent contends there is no genuine issue of material fact remaining to be determined and that its revocation of the Robinsons’ joint family foster home license, pursuant to 10 N.C.A.C. 70E .0506(a), was proper. The Respondent further points out that N.C.G.S. 131D- 10.3(h)(1) requires that upon revocation of a family foster home license, a foster parent may not be relicensed for 60 months following the date of revocation.

8. Lauren Robinson agrees there is no genuine issue of material fact to be determined concerning her husband’s foster care license, and she recognizes that the joint license issued on March 1, 2003, expired on March 1, 2005, during the pendency of this contested case. However, she wishes to be able to seek relicensure for herself without waiting the 60 months mandated by N.C.G.S. 131D-10.3(h)(1).

9. No evidence has ever been alleged or presented, and Respondent does not contend, that Lauren Robinson knew of or participated in any way in the sexual abuse of her foster child, Alexis W.

10. It is the practice of the Respondent to license family foster homes, not individuals, and thus the therapeutic care foster home license at issue in this matter was granted to “the home of Gifton Robinson and Lauren S. Robinson.” However, both Mr. and Mrs. Robinson were individually required to meet certain requirements, such as initial and continuing foster parent training.

11. The Court finds that although the Respondent issued a joint therapeutic care family home license to the Petitioners, the Respondent was in effect licensing both Lauren and Gifton Robinson individually as well.

12. The Court further finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact related to the revocation of Gifton Robinson’s foster care license following his convictions for sexually abusing a foster child in his care. His foster care license was properly revoked by the Respondent.

13. As to Lauren Robinson, the Court finds that the Respondent has no basis on which to revoke her foster care license, but does find that her license expired on March 1, 2005. The Court specifically finds that Lauren Robinson is not bound by the provisions of N.C.G.S. 131D-10.3(h)(1) and is free to apply for relicensure with any agency duly authorized to provide foster home services.

-3- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. There are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the revocation of Gifton Robinson’s foster care license pursuant to 10 N.C.A.C. 70E .0506(a) based on a substantiation of sexual abuse of a foster child.

2. The family foster care license issued by the Respondent to Gifton Robinson was properly revoked.

3. There is no legal basis for the revocation of the family foster care license of Lauren Robinson, but that license expired on March 1, 2005.

4. Lauren Robinson may therefore apply for relicensure without regard to the provisions of N.C.G.S. 131D-10.3(h)(1).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by the Respondent is granted only as to the foster care license of Gifton Robinson.

NOTICE

The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this decision and to present written arguments to those in the agency who will make the final decision. G.S. 150B-36(a).

The agency is required by G.S. 150B-36(b) to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and to furnish a copy to the parties’ attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

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

This the 22 nd day of February, 2006.

______Sammie Chess, Jr. Administrative Law Judge