State of Michigan

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

BUREAU OF CHILDREN AND ADULT LICENSING
RICK SNYDER MAURA D. CORRIGAN
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR

May 2, 2011

William Blacquiere
Bethany Christian Services Inc
901 Eastern Avenue, NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0294

RE: License #: CB410200976 - Bethany Christian Services Inc.

Investigation #: 2011C0110052

Dear Mr. Blacquiere:

Attached is the Special Investigation Report for the above referenced facility. Due to the
violations identified in the report, a written corrective action plan is required. The
corrective action plan is due 15 days from the date of this letter and must include the
following:

• How compliance with each rule will be achieved.

• Who is directly responsible for implementing the corrective action for each violation.
• Specific time frames for each violation as to when the correction will be completed or
implemented.
• How continuing compliance will be maintained once compliance is achieved.
• The signature of the responsible party and a date.

With an approved corrective action plan, a provisional license will be issued. Failure to
submit an acceptable corrective action plan will result in disciplinary action. If you desire
technical assistance in addressing these issues, please feel free to contact me. In the
event that I am not available, you may contact Deborah Clark, Area Manager, at (906)
228-2852.

Sincerely,

Steve Ragsdale, Licensing Consultant

Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing
Unit 13, 7th Floor
350 Ottawa, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(616) 356-0127

P.O. BOX 30650 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-8150

www.michigan.gov • (517) 335-6124
 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
BUREAU OF CHILDREN AND ADULT LICENSING
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

I. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

License #: CB410200976

Investigation #: 2011C0110052

Complaint Receipt Date: 02/16/2011

Investigation Initiation Date:

Report Due Date: 04/17/2011

Licensee Name: Bethany Christian Services Inc

Licensee Address: 901 Eastern Av Ne

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Licensee Telephone #: (616) 224-7610

Administrator: William Blacquiere, Administrator

William Blacquiere, Designee

Licensee Designee: William Blacquiere, Designee

Name of Facility: Bethany Christian Services Inc

Facility Address: 901 Eastern Avenue, NE

Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0294

Facility Telephone #: (616) 459-6273

Original Issuance Date: 10/01/1994

License Status: REGULAR

Effective Date: 09/29/2010

Expiration Date: 09/28/2012

Capacity: Unknown

Program Type: CHILD PLACING AGENCY, PRIVATE

1
 II. ALLEGATION

A complaint was received that Bethany Christian Services staff failed to properly
consider a relative’s desire to adopt Child A and Child B.

III. METHODOLOGY

02/14/2011 Special Investigation Intake - 2011C0110052

02/15/2011 Special Investigation initiated- on site; interview Administrator 1,
Supervisor 2, and Administrator 2. Document Review. Documents
received.
02/25/2011 Interview of Foster Care Worker 1
03/08/2011 Interview of Children’s mother
03/24/2011 Interview of BCS-Holland Supervisor 1

ALLEGATION:

A complaint was received that Bethany Christian Services staff failed to properly
consider a relative’s desire to adopt Child A and Child B.

INVESTIGATION:

A review of Child A’s and Child B’s (siblings) foster care file found that they were made
temporary court wards on 7/16/2009 and placed under the supervision of Bethany
Christian Services of Grand Rapids (BCS-GR, CB410200976). Child A and Child B
were initially placed in a relative placement (Relative Home 1) for just a few days and
then removed at the request of the relative. They were placed in Foster Home 1, a non-
relative placement. On 2/3/2010, the Foster Home 1 placement disrupted due to a
serious licensing rule violation. Child A and Child B were moved to Foster Home 2, a
home that was borrowed from Bethany Christian Services of Holland (BCS-Holland,
CB700200981).

The Initial Service Plan, dated 8/13/09, indicates that the maternal great aunt and great
uncle were identified to BCS-GR as a relative interested in providing care. The
children’s great aunt stated that she repetitively expressed interest in providing care for
Child A and Child B to Bethany staff, beginning in August of 2009 and continuing to the
present. Updated Service Plans indicate that the children’s great aunt initiated multiple
contacts with BCS-GR staff. The great aunt stated that she was repeatedly assured by
BCS-GR Foster Care Worker 1 “not to worry” since relatives are prioritized over non-
relatives when the permanency plan is adoption. On January 29, 2010, Bethany
Christian Services received (via delivery confirmation mail) a written “Relative Response
Form” from the children’s great aunt and great uncle expressing their interest in caring
for Child A and Child B. When interviewed, the great aunt stated she also wanted to
provide care or adopt Child C (the newly born sibling of Child A and Child B who had
recently been placed in foster care as a temporary ward of the court) and had
expressed this desire to Foster Care Worker 1 “from the beginning.”

2
Child A and Child B’s case notes indicate that the children’s great aunt and great uncle
made ongoing efforts for several months to build a relationship with Child A and Child B.
Since they live in California, the great aunt would “Skype” Child A and Child B (have
online conversations with the children via an internet webcam) and visited them in
Michigan several times. The children’s great aunt described these contacts as very
positive, but also recognized that she was still relatively “new” to the children and that
these relationships naturally take time.

BCS-GR Foster Care Worker 1 stated that she was aware that the children’s great aunt
and great uncle in California were also willing to provide care for Child A and Child B.
She deferred consideration of that option because the original permanency plan was
reunification with the children’s mother, who lived in Grand Rapids. BCS-GR Foster
Care Worker 1 stated that the permanency plan would be hampered if the mother could
not have regular visitation with her children.

On several occasions, Foster Care Worker 1 informed the BCS-Holland, non-relative

foster parents that relatives will be prioritized over non-relatives, should adoption
become the permanency plan. When the children’s mother voluntarily relinquished her
parental rights on 9/8/2010, the permanency plan for Child A and Child B changed from
reunification to adoption. Foster Care Worker 1 stated that BCS-GR continued oversight
of the Child A and Child B’s foster care case while the facilitation of the adoption was
assigned to BCS-Holland.

BCS-GR Administrator 2 stated that it is Bethany Christian Services’ “typical practice” to

allow the lending agency of a borrowed foster home to facilitate the adoption.
Administrator 2 stated that this practice allows the lending agency to recoup financial
expenditures (via receiving payment for adoption services) previously incurred for the
recruitment, licensing, and supervision of the foster home.

BCS-Holland Adoption Worker 1 stated that she considered the home study of the non-
relative foster parents as well as the home study of Child A’s and Child B’s great aunt
and great uncle. Adoption Worker 1 stated that both home studies were acceptable and
both families were appropriate for potential adoption. Adoption Worker 1 stated she had
not yet determined if the children’s great aunt and great uncle were also interested in
providing care for or adopting the birth mother’s new baby [Child C] that had recently
been placed in Foster Home 2 as a temporary ward. BCS-Holland Adoption Worker 1
consulted with BCS-Holland Supervisor 1 and considered both families. They
recommended the non-relative foster parents to adopt Child A and Child B.

BCS Holland Adoption Worker 1 stated that Foster Parent 2 reported that Child A
“struggled” after visit with their great aunt by becoming somewhat irritable. The
children’s great aunt stated that she repetitively offered to visit more frequently and was
told by BCS-Holland Supervisor 2 to save her vacation time for when the children were
placed with her.

3
BCS-Holland Adoption Worker 1 also stated that she was 100% confident in her
recommendation to support adoption by non-relatives over a relative adoption.

BCS-Holland Supervisor 2 stated Child A and Child B’s great aunt asked her about how
to best connect with Child A and Child B given that the great aunt lives in California.
BCS-Holland Supervisor 2 stated that they discussed and problem-solved regarding
several different scenarios including the possibility of Child A and Child B being placed
with the children’s great aunt. BCS-Holland Supervisor 2 stated that the children’s great
aunt asked her specific questions about how much vacation/leave time to allot to
coming to Michigan to bond with Child A and Child B. BCS-Holland Supervisor 2 stated
that Child A and Child B’s great Aunt stated that she was considering taking a “FMLA”
(Family Medical Leave Act) from her job in order to spend weeks with the children. She
stated that she encouraged the children’s great aunt to consider that “if the children are
placed with you, you may want to have vacation time available.” BCS-Holland
Supervisor 2 denied discouraging the children’s great aunt from visiting or spending
time with the children. BCS-Holland Supervisor 2 also denied suggesting to the
children’s great aunt that the children would be placed with her. She further stated that
she informed the children’s great aunt that BCS-Holland adoption staff make
recommendations regarding adoption, but that the final decision is made by Michigan
Children Institute (MCI) staff.

BCS-Holland Supervisor 2 stated that BCS-Holland has done many placements with out
of state relatives. She stated that she told Child A and Child B’s great aunt “If you lived
in Michigan, the children would have been placed with you.” BCS-Holland Supervisor 2
said that it’s her and her agency’s role to “look at what the children [age 4 & 2] think is
best for them” and to also determine what caseworkers and the foster parents believe to
be in the children’s best interest since they are involved with the children’s everyday life.
BCS-Holland Supervisor 2 stated that “kids don’t know the difference between blood
and non-relatives.”

In a 1/7/11 letter to Child A and Child B’s great aunt and uncle, BCS Holland Supervisor
1 stated that it would be detrimental to the children to experience the loss of their
current relationship and attachment to their current foster family.

This consultant and Consultant Vernon Oard reviewed the adoption home studies for
both the children’s foster family and the children’s great aunt and great uncle. The non-
relative foster family adoption study [Foster Home 2] described the children as having
adjusted very well to their foster family. Both children were described as happy and
comfortable in their foster home. Child B had been previously diagnosed as “failure to
thrive” and had now bonded to her foster parents, was gaining weight and easily
interacting with family members. The home study stated that Foster Mother 2 has a
part-time job with a flexible schedule. Foster Father 2 is employed by CSX Railroad and
is “gone for weeks at a time for work, so (Foster Mother 2) will be home alone with her
children and the foster children (3 biological children and 3 foster children = 6 children)
quite regularly.” An addendum to the study stated that Foster Father 2 is “gone for days

4
at a time.” The home study also stated that the Foster Father 2 “had one criminal
conviction as a young adult for larceny of a stereo.”

The home study of the great aunt (age 51) and great uncle (age 45) was completed by
the California Department of Public Social Services. This home study described them as
stable, established, and very committed to providing for and loving these children. They
were very excited to bring the children into their home. The children’s great aunt and
great uncle do not have children of their own, but both of them have social service
careers. The children’s great aunt is currently employed as a master’s prepared social
worker for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in a woman’s
prison. She previously worked with children in several children’s facilities in the Grand
Rapids area. The children’s great uncle is employed as a master’s level, behavior health
specialist by the Riverside County Department of Mental Health. Both the great aunt
and great uncle have a great deal of experience interacting with and caring for their
nieces and nephews, as well as other children. The criminal background checks for both
the great aunt and great uncle indicated no history of criminal behavior or the
mistreatment of children.

Child A and Child B’s mother was interviewed by Licensing Consultant Vernon Oard.
The children’s mother stated she initially contested the termination of her parental rights
and later voluntarily relinquished her rights. Prior to voluntarily relinquishing her parental
rights; BCS-GR Foster Care Worker 1, BCS-GR Supervisor 1, and BCS-GR
Administrator 3 told her that Child A and Child B would be placed with relatives. The
children’s mother stated that she testified in court that that Child A and Child B needed
to be with family. She stated that “two months after I lost my kids, I was told that the
children may not be placed with relatives since Foster Mother 2 was attached to Child A
and Child B.” The children’s mother stated Foster Care Worker 1 testified that
placement with the children’s great aunt “would be okay” if her background check was
positive. The children’s mother further stated Bethany staff insisted that all of her
children remain in the Grand Rapids area by “using the excuse that my oldest son [Child
D, who is placed with his father] would miss my other two children.” The children’s
mother stated that “(Child D) would be fine with his brother and sister not living in Grand
Rapids.”

Special Investigations 2010C0110037, 2009C0110036, and 2009C0110062 all

established that Bethany Christian Services failed to appropriately consider placing
children with relatives (R400.12404).

Special Investigation 2009C0110062 previously established that Bethany Christian

Services staff told a family to “nominate” one relative candidate to provide care. When
this relative was not approved, the family was not given the opportunity to propose
additional candidates and Bethany staff did not evaluate or consider other available
relatives. In the current investigation, BCS – Holland Adoption Worker 1 and BCS –
Grand Rapids Foster Care Worker 1 each stated that they had not told the family to pick
one person or put the best relative forward, but both acknowledged having told the
family that it would “take longer if there were more family members to consider.”

5
Special Investigations 2010C0110037, 2009C011036, and 2009C0110062 all
established that Bethany Christian Services failed to appropriately consider placing
children with relatives.

APPLICABLE RULE
R 400.12404 Placement.
(3) An agency shall consider all of the following factors in
selecting an appropriate placement for a child:
(d) Placement of the child with relatives.

ANALYSIS: Bethany Christian Services staff supported family re-unification

by deferring placement with relatives and instead secured a
long-term foster placement for Child A and Child B in a non-
relative foster home. When the permanency plan changed from
reunification to adoption, Bethany staff did not immediately
place Child A and B with an available and appropriate relative. If
Bethany Christian Services staff moved the children to an
available relative placement when reunification was no longer
the goal, Child A and Child B’s opportunity to successfully bond
to a relative placement would not have continued to lessen.

Whether or not a family is told to select one family candidate or

told that the application of multiple family candidates slow down
the process, Bethany Christian Services had an obligation to
evaluate additional relatives prior to considering a non-relative
placement.
CONCLUSION: REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

APPLICABLE RULE
R 400.12405 Change of placement.
(1) An agency shall give first consideration to returning the child
to the parent or to placing the child with a relative when a
change is indicated.
(2) The agency shall document all of the following in the child's
record before a change of placement occurs:
(c) If the child is not returned to the parent or placed with a
relative, then the reason why return or placement is not
possible.

6
 ANALYSIS: When BCS-GR sub-contracted adoption services to BCS-
Holland as a financial consideration, BCS-GR effectively
lessened consideration of placement with relatives, as the case
history was “once-removed” from the adoption assessment.
BCS-Holland Adoption Worker 1 never acknowledged the rule
requirement for Child A’s and Child B’s great aunt and great
uncle to be given first consideration in adopting the children.
BCS-GR continued to be the contract agency for supervising the
care of Child A and Child B. It was their responsibility to insure
that this occurred. When the great aunt and great uncle again
requested that Child A and Child B be placed with them on the
day that the mother’s parental rights were relinquished and the
permanency plan changed to adoption (9/8/2010); BCS-GR staff
did not give first, immediate, and unbiased consideration to the
deferred relative placement option and instead delegated the
decision to BCS-Holland.

As technical assistance, it is noted that the traumatic impact of

removing the children from their foster family could have been
reduced and/or avoided if both BCS-GR and BCS-Holland had
given appropriate consideration to the immediate placement
with relatives at the time of the termination of parental rights.
Instead, several months passed and Child A and Child B
continued to further bond to their foster parents.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS:

INVESTIGATION:

BCS-GR Foster Care Worker 1 also stated that because BCS-GR had no available
African-American foster homes and no foster homes at all who could accommodate this
sibling group of two for a long term placement, a Caucasian foster home was borrowed
from BCS-Holland.

BCS-GR Administrator 2 provided documentation that BCS-GR has 40% occupancy of

available foster care beds. BCS-GR Administrator 2 provided further documentation that
in the 2008-2009 contract year, 10.3% of the 288 children placed in foster care were
placed in racially dissimilar homes.

The home study of Foster Home 2 indicates that the foster parents were open to cross-
racial placements.

BCS-Holland Supervisor 2 stated that BCS-GR foster care staff contacted her
requesting an African American foster care home for Child A and Child B. She told them

7
that BCS-Holland had no African American homes available, so she offered what she
had (a Caucasian foster home).

APPLICABLE RULE
R 400.12304 Recruitment and retention.
(1) An agency shall have an ongoing foster home recruitment
program to ensure an adequate number of suitable and qualified
homes to meet the needs of children served by the agency.

ANALYSIS: BCS-GR did not recruit and maintain an adequate number of suitable
and qualified homes to meet the needs of Child A and Child B to be
connected to their racial, ethnic, and cultural identity, heritage, and
background.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

Child A and Child B’s great aunt and Child A and Child B’s mother both expressed
concern that in addition to the children not being placed with an appropriate family
member, Bethany Christian Services placed Child A and Child B in a Caucasian home,
in a Caucasian community, depriving them of adequate exposure to their culture,
heritage, and community. Both Child A and Child B’s mother and great aunt repetitively
expressed to Bethany Christian Services foster care and adoption workers in both
Grand Rapids and Holland, their desire that Child A and Child B be placed with Child A
and Child B’s Great Aunt.

In a description of the racial/cultural makeup of Foster Home 2’s community, their

Adoption Evaluation does not list an African American population in the Racial
Composition of the Community section of the report.

APPLICABLE RULE
R 400.12709 Placement.
(1) An agency shall consider all of the following factors in
selecting appropriate adoptive parents for a child:
(c)The racial, ethnic, and cultural identity, heritage, and
background. The child's racial, ethnic, and cultural identity,
heritage, and background may only be considered if an
assessment of the individual child indicates that such
consideration is in the best interests of the child.

8
 ANALYSIS: The racial, ethnic, cultural identity, heritage, and background of
Child A and Child B was and is an issue to their family. BCS-GR
staff failed to assess the long-term impact of Child A and B (both
African American) growing up in a Caucasian home in a
predominantly Caucasian community. Child A and B’s great
aunt and great uncle (African American) are available and
appropriate to adopt Child A and B.

Special Investigation #2010C0110037 noted that BCS-GR

previously failed to assess a foster child’s racial, ethnic, and
cultural heritage and background when making a
recommendation for adoption, but did not establish a violation.
The findings of the current investigation substantiate a pattern of
not taking into account the children’s racial, ethnic, and cultural
identity, heritage, and background when they are clearly an
issue.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Upon the receipt of an acceptable corrective action plan, a provisional license will
be issued.

03/25/2011
Steve Ragsdale Date
Licensing Consultant

Approved By:

04/27/2011

Deborah Clark Date

Area Manager