The Gladney Center For Adoption

The caregiver was not following either child's service plan regarding supervision at the time of the incident.

During the course of the DFPS investigation, it was determined that the foster parents were listening through a camera to all interviews with the foster children.

A camera was in the foster children's bedroom that the service plan did not warrant.

Two children in care were spanked multiple times as a form of discipline.

During the inspection at the home, house tools were found to be stored on a table that was accessible to a child in care.

There is not a discussion or assessment of a foster parent's substance abuse history in the home screening.

An adoptive home is verified for children ages 0-16. This home currently has a placement, who is 17 years old.

Four of the four quarterly supervisory forms reviewed did not include signature(s) of the foster parent(s) present during the quarterly supervisory visits.

A child in care's medication logs for August 2022 were reviewed. Two of the three did not have a physician's name listed.

According to documentation, foster parents told their caseworker during a post-placement visit that they were not administering one of the child's medications on weekends. There is no documentation in the child's file from a physician that gives permission for this alteration to a daily medication.

Two children were left outside unsupervised on the patio by the pool.

A firearm was unlocked and placed on a table in the presence of children in the home. Note: This was corrected at inspection due to there no longer being any firearms in the home. An inspection was conducted at the home and no firearms were observed.

The pool pump was not completely inaccessible to children in the home.

During a review conducted on 9.02.2022 it was determined that: (1) the Administrator failed to ensure compliance with the current HM Plans; and (2) 12 months had elapsed since the effective date of the plan. The heightened monitoring plans for this operation included a specific ?planned end date? at the 12-month mark by which the operation was expected to meet all heightened monitoring criteria necessary to move out of active heightened monitoring to a phase of ?post plan monitoring?. As a direct result of the administrator?s failure to ensure timely compliance with heightened monitoring plans, this operation is now unable to successfully move to post-plan monitoring. Furthermore, the operation?s ?planned end date? must now be revised, and the period of heightened monitoring must be extended. Further details of the administrator?s failure to ensure compliance include the following: - Operation failed to satisfy the conditions of the plan - Operation failed to demonstrate 6 months of successive compliance with the standard and contract requirements that led to heightened monitoring;

During the monitoring inspection multiple documents had to be requested from staff due to not being in the appropriate files.

A child's service plan did not contain the signatures of all parties involved in the service plan meeting.

A background check was not completed on a family member of the adoptive mother, as required, who had unsupervised access to the child.

The home screening shows that the home is verified to accept children with emotional disorders; however, CLASS only shows that the home is verified for basic placements and not for children with emotional disorders. The current placement has emotional disorders and a specialized level of care as noted in the child's record. In addition, the home screening approves the home for placements between the ages of 7 and 13 while CLASS shows that the home is approved for placements between the ages of 7 and 15. The child currently placed in the home is 14.

A child that was in an adoptive placement was not allowed to participate in virial sibling visits.

A child who was in an adoptive placement was not given two out of three medications while placed in his adoptive home.

Foster parents used spanking as a discipline method for children in care. Foster parent also hit a child in a vital area resulting in injury.

The home screening did not document how the caregivers would implement individualized discipline techniques based on a potential child's development or special needs.

A foster parent inappropriately disciplined a four year old child, by hitting the child on the face, resulting in a nose bleed.

Background checks were not completed on frequent visitors as required.

Children in the home reported foster parents would grab them and yell at them for discipline.

A caregiver used inappropriate methods for educating a child in care regarding human reproduction. At that time, the child was too young for training and goal setting on this topic.

Background check was not conducted on a frequent visitor as required.

Supervisory visit does not document if the visit was announced or unannounced.

Supervisory visits do not document minimum standards/rules that were evaluated.

One adoption home screening does not document information obtained from foster parent and collateral interviews.

Background checks were not conducted on frequent visitors as required.

A home screening did not include expenses for medical, pet, and legal.

Background checks were not conducted on emerency caregivers/frequent visitors as required.

Rabies vaccination was past due for a dog in an adoptive home.

A child was not supervised appropriately which resulted in inappropriate behavior with another child.

A child was made to sleep in the foster parent's bathroom. Child was moved back to her room immediately upon inspection at the home.

Background checks were not conducted on emergency caregivers/frequent visitors as required.