TEXAS DEPT OF FPS REG 05

A caregiver did not demonstrate prudent judgement when leaving children in care with an unauthorized babysitter.

Children in care were hit on their legs and feet with different objects and made to kneel for extended periods of time as a form of discipline.

Per Texas Family Code CPS Policy 1936.3 Children and Youth in DFPS Conservatorship: - If a caseworker or medical consenter suspects that a child or youth may be misusing or abusing substances, the caseworker or medical consenter may have the child or youth drug tested only by a medical provider. - The caseworker and medical consenter do not conduct drug tests on the child or youth. - If the child or youth appears to require immediate medical care, the caseworker must take the child or youth to an emergency medical facility. - To have a child or youth drug tested by a medical provider, the caseworker or medical consenter makes an appointment with the child or youth?s health care provider or primary care physician (PCP). - The caseworker or medical consenter then informs the health care provider or PCP about the concern for the child or youth?s possible use of or exposure to substances. During the course of the investigation, it was shared that the child returned from a visit with family and was suspected to have been exposed to illegal substances. It was shared that the child was given an at-home drug test administered in the home. Per Texas Family Code, at-home drug tests are not to be administered to children and youth in DFPS Conservatorship.

It was noted in interviews that foster parents were speaking negatively towards the child's biological family in front of the child and other parties. It was found that the children of the home were hearing the negative remarks and were repeating them.

During the investigation, it was noted that the child received a drug test in the home. It was shared that result was a faint positive. The child was not taken to see a doctor to ensure no negative reactions or adverse effects.

A caregiver admitted that she did not report her firearms to the agency.

Children in care reported being yelled at by the foster parent.

During an inspection, the foster parent did not have a copy of the children in placement's service plans.

Based on information obtained in interviews, label instructions on an adolescent's medication bottle, medication logs as well as the Intake Report, it was determined a foster parent did not administer medication according to label instructions resulting in an adolescent missing several dosages of medication on several occasions.

Based on information obtained in interviews as well as Infraction Documentation in IMPACT, it was determined a foster parent did not store medication inaccessible to adolescents in care. An adolescent in care had access to a brand-new bottle of pills consuming all the pills in the bottle.

Foster parents stated that they had used running as a form of discipline for their two foster children.

During the inspection, Foster home studies did not document a discussion with the family of whether there had been service calls from law enforcement.

One child mattress did not have the required cover/protector on the mattress.

Foster parents were utilizing ear pulling in a home as a form of discipline. Walking to school is being used as a form of punishment in a foster home.

Children in care were sexually abused.

A caregiver failed to report incident of alleged sexual abuse of a children in his care.

Children in care experienced ongoing sexual abuse due to a lack of supervision.

Foster parent did not allow children to be interviewed in private, despite two requests. Foster parent instructed the children that they did not have to talk to the investigator.

The agency failed to report an incident in which a child contracted a communicable disease in a timely manner.

One child's file reviewed did not have documentation that the child received a copy of rights in the required timeframe. the child was placed on 12/11/2020. Documented child's rights were dated 4/19/2021.

In 4 case files reviewed. There was no documentation that there was a 2 week notification given to the parents for an initial service plan for 1 child and the service plan review for 3 children.

During the review of a child's service plan, the document stated the parent was present, then later stated that the parent was not present. The document stated that the parent was present on the date of the meeting however a copy of the service plan was not given to the parent until a later date.

An incident/injury that occurred was not reported to licensing within the required time frame.