Children of Diversity

The foster parent allowed the foster child to sleep on their bed in the middle of the night.

During the inspection, it was determined that the agency did not validate backgrounds within the timeframe.

One child's Service Plan and Admission Assessment were reviewed and contained inaccurate, and conflicting information. There were also sections left incomplete.

A caregiver with a provisional background check prohibiting him from providing being alone with children in care and requiring that he be supervised by a person with no conditions regarding their presence at the operation is only being supervised by another caregiver with a conditionally approved background check. Additionally, three of three children interviewed stated on multiple occasions they were solely supervised by the caregiver with the provisional background check.

During the walkthrough, poisonous chemicals were observed atop the kitchen counters, and below the kitchen sink, both places being accessible by children.

During the walkthrough, two smoke detectors were observed to be "chirpping" to indicate low battery.

It was determined during the investigation that children in care were physically abused.

It was discovered during the investigation that a child in care was hit with a broom, stomped on and choked by the foster parent.

It was discovered during the investigation that children in care would get pinched on the ears by the foster parent as a form of discipline.

A child's non-emergency admission assessment was not completed prior to admission

During a review conducted on 9/26/2023 it was determined that: - 12 months had elapsed since the effective date of the plan. The heightened monitoring plan 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 the heightened monitoring plan, 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 demonstrate 6 months of successive compliance with the standard and contract requirements that led to heightened monitoring; and - Operation was unable to meet compliance with Medium-High or High weighted licensing citations, including having an open investigation.

During the investigation, it was found that children in care were directed to restrain another child in care on multiple occasions.

A foster parent and a caregiver did not follow the agencies EBI policies regarding children not being allowed to perform restraints.

A foster parent failed to exercise prudent judgement when on multiple occasions they filmed a child in a period of crisis.

During the inspection, a smoke detector was observed by the investigator to be "chirping" to indicate low battery on two separate occasions.

A previous frequent visitor's background check was not updated to reflect his status as a household member and caregiver.

A caregiver and a foster parent were not able to appropriately intervene whilst a child was having a crisis moment.

During the inspection, the investigator observed poisonous cleaning supplies were sitting on the back of a toilet accessible to children.

Five children's service plans did not specify the children's individual supervisory needs.

The Licensed Child Care Administrator (LCCA) for Children of Diversity has not been present at the operation to provide on-site administrative oversight during 25 of 25 Heightened Monitoring Inspections and inspection exits.

Multiple children consistently reported instances of the foster dad using corporal punishment.

Child placement staff were not ensuring the home was continuing to be the most appropriate placement, as the home was violating the conditions of the variance by allowing their grandchildren to share a room with the children in care. This was confirmed through interviews with children in the home.

Multiple children consistently reported instances of the foster dad using prohibited discipline tactics to include pulling children's hair.

A child in care was told by a foster parent to keep a traumatic event a secret.

During the investigation, it was found that a child?s rights were violated when the child was sexually abused by their foster father.

The foster parent failed to ensure child safety, when a child was injured via an unknown source.

Children in care were left at the home without foster parents although the children's service plans specified that this was not to occur.

During the investigation, two of two children interviewed stated that they were physically disciplined by their foster mom while in care.

An adult unrelated visitor to the home reported instances of being left alone with two children in care. The two children in care also reported the unrelated visitor as being regularly and frequently present in the home. The operation did not have a completed or approved background check on this frequent visitor. During the investigation, the background check was run by DFPS, showing multiple convictions that would require substantial assessment by the operation to ensure the safety and well-being of children.

During the investigation, a child in care reported that part of her chore's included caring for an adopted child with disabilities within the home. The care included changing the child's diapers, and feeding the child via a G-Tube.

During the investigation, it was found that children's rights were violated when they were physically abused their foster mother.

A household member was living in the foster home without a submitted and cleared background check.

In a review of a floorplan, a room serving as a foster child s bedroom was observed have one door for exiting and entering, which was through a foster parent s bedroom. The bedroom lacked access that was not a passageway. This was confirmed to be the case through speaking with two staff members.

In a review of a floorplan, a room occupied by a foster child was not denoted as an area for children s use. The floorplan denoted that the area was an extra room , however it did not explain the purpose of the room or denote that it was an area for children s use.

Review of child's service plan revealed child's high risk behavior plan was not followed.

Two relative children who were living in the home at the time of the home's verification moved out in September of 2021. An addendum addressing this major life change was not completed within 30 days of being notified of the change, as the addendum wasn't completed until October of 2022. A foster home supervisory visit to the home in October of 2021 noted the change.

The capacity of a foster home was updated on October 10th, 2022 and a new verification was issued to the home; however, this change in the condition of the home's verification has not been reported to licensing.

All supervisory visits to the foster home for the previous year noted that both foster parents were present; however, only one foster parent's signature was noted on the form.

Condition #1-Compliant Condition #2-Compliant Condition #3- Not Met- the documentation for the condition lacked detailed information Condition #4-Compliant Condition #5-Compliant

One child's rights was not signed for a child with an admission's date of 8/15/22. One child's right's was not in the file for a child with an admission's date of 9/14/22.

2 service plan reviews did not list goals for children in care for all applicable sections of the the service plan review.

5 of 5 staff have not had a random drug screening since the initial screening prior to employment.

3 of 4 records did not have specific instructions to Caregivers regarding the level of supervision needed for children in care.

Condition #1-Compliant Condition #2-Compliant Condition #3- Not Met- the documentation for the condition lacked detailed information Condition #4-Compliant Condition #5-Compliant

One child's file reviewed was observed to be missing a copy of the child's Placement Agreement.

One of the five child records reviewed was observed to be missing a signed Medical Consent form.

The foster home verification did not reflect the current address for the home. The foster parent had been at the current address for 9 months.

Two children reported the foster parent listening to their private Zoom and phone calls with their worker.

The home screening budget used foster care reimbursement as a source of income. The budget on the home study is used to determine that the home has sufficient income/funds before the foster care reimbursement.

Multiple children placed in the home stated their belongings such as clothing and shoes are confiscated as a form of punishment or if the foster mother does not like them.

The home screening does not address the closure of the foster parent's home by their previous CPA.

One 14 year old initial child's service plan and service plan review did not include the signature of the CPMS.

Two children's monthly contacts did not document an evaluation of the safety of the child in the home, if the placement continues to be appropriate for the child, if the child's needs are being met, the length of time of the visit with the child, whether the child was met with in private, or any documentation of the child's expression of their feelings about the placement and how it is working out.

Two foster home files were missing quarterly visits for the first quarter of 2021.

During the walkthrough of the home the child's bedroom door was removed from the hinges.

A frequent visitor was present in the home, occasionally staying overnight, without a background check.

Child was hit with a belt as a form of discipline to correct behavior.

Child was hit with a belt on multiple occasions by the caregiver which left the child with marks and bruises. Caregiver in the home also allowed a frequent visitor to discipline the child multiple times with a belt.

A caregiver had a child doing push-ups as a form of punishment.

A caregiver threatened children's placement by telling them they would have to go the respite for being mischievous.

A child is sometimes home alone although her service plan does not allow it.

When reviewing one child's service plan it was noted the plan stated the child would not be allowed to leave the foster parent's street and be checked on every 10 min. The foster parent admitted to allowing the children to go to a store alone.

Four out of six youth interviewed stated the foster parent yells at them when they are in trouble.

During the inspection; the caregiver did not have the service plans for children in care.

A household member turned 14 years of age and an initial background check was not submitted until almost one year later

During the walk-through of the home; flammable and poisonous substances were accessible to the children in care.

2 of 4 children's files reviewed did not have proof of a TB Skin test.

A caregiver allowed a youth in care to go somewhere without them which is contrary to the youth's supervision instructions in the service plan.

A household member not trained in EBI restrained a youth in care longer than one minute.

The foster parent showed poor judgment by touching the children's chins and turning the children's faces to face her while she was talking to the children. This caused the children to experience discomfort.

During investigation interviews 3 out of 4 boys stated the foster mother calls one boy infant when he is upset or can not complete a task without help.

Foster parent and children confirm that Foster parent smokes in the vehicle while transporting children.

The service plan's two children in the home state that supervision is required for both in the home and outside of the home. The foster parent and the children advised that they children are left home alone for periods of time.

The foster parent did not notify the agency of her address change.

The wrong child's information was documented on the foster parent's March progress notes.

Requests were sent, via email, on 4/22/21. 6/9/21, and 6/11/21, asking for foster home incident reports, however the records were never received.

The documentation in two children's service plan updates, dated 4/17/21, were identical and did not include an accurate evaluation of neither child's progress or previous goals.

A safety plan for supervision was requested, from the CPMS, to reduce the risk to children but was not received.

Two children's service plans, dated 4/17/21, were not appropriately followed and supervision was not properly provided for the level of service the children needed.

The Agency nor the Foster Parent reported to Licensing an incident of inappropriate sexual contact between children in care.

A caregiver admitted, and it was observed, that two infants were sleeping in one crib.

A caregiver inflicted physical pain onto a child in care as means of controlling or managing the child's behavior.

The foster parent's significant other admitted to being a frequent visitor and visiting the home 3 to 4 times a week, but did not have a background check.

As a form of punishment, a caregiver held a child's hand under hot, running water, causing 2nd degree burns. The caregiver also failed to provide immediate medical attention to the child's substantial physical injury.

A caregiver purposely mislead RCCI and HPD Detectives by withholding information.

A caregiver failed to immediately report a substantial physical injury that a reasonable person would conclude needs treatment by a medical professional or hospitalization.