STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

BUREAU OF CHILDREN AND ADULT LICENSING
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM ISMAEL AHMED
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR

May 14, 2010

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

RE: License #: CB410200976

Investigation #: 2010C0110037
Bethany Christian Services Inc

Dear Mr. Blacquiere:

Attached is the Special Investigation Report for the above referenced facility. Due to
the violation identified in the report, a written corrective action plan is required. Tom
Mulder and Jeff Roley have submitted an acceptable corrective action.

Please review the enclosed documentation for accuracy and feel free to contact me with
any questions. In the event that I am not available and you need to speak to someone
immediately, please feel free to 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 #: 2010C0110037

Complaint Receipt Date: 04/23/2010

Investigation Initiation Date: 04/23/2010

Report Due Date: 06/22/2010

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

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: 09/29/2008

Expiration Date: 09/28/2010

Capacity: Unknown

Program Type: CHILD PLACING AGENCY, PRIVATE

1
 II. ALLEGATION

A complaint was received that Bethany Christian Services staff

a. did not give relatives a reasonable opportunity to create a bond with Child A, prior to
making a decision on who to recommend to adopt her.
b. Placed Child A, an African American, in a Caucasian foster home in a Caucasian
community, creating a situation in which she would have no exposure to her culture and
heritage.

III. METHODOLOGY

04/23/2010 Special Investigation Intake - 2010C0110037

Special Investigation Initiated - Telephone –Grand Parent 1

04/26/2010 Contact – Face-to-Face- Grand Parent 2

04/27/2010 Contact – Face-to Face – interview of Caseworker 1, Supervisor 1,

and Administrator 1. File Review.

04/28/2010 Contact – Telephone call to Grand Parent 1 and Grand Parent 2

04/30/2010 Contact – Telephone cal received - Grand Parent 2

ALLEGATION:

Bethany Christian Services staff did not give relatives a reasonable opportunity to
create a bond with Child A, prior to making a decision on who to recommend to adopt
her.

INVESTIGATION:

Special Investigation 2009c0110062, dated 9/25/2009, previously established that:

1. Bethany Foster Care Staff did not appropriately consider relatives in deciding the
best placement option for Child A [R400.12404(3)(d)]
2. Bethany Adoption Staff did not provide orientation to prospective relatives who were
interested in Adopting Child A. [R44.12604]]
3. Bethany Adoption Staff did not consider all potential relatives in recommending an
appropriate adoptive home for Child A. [R400.12707(1)(a& b)]

Grand Parent 1 stated that she had applied to be a foster parent through Bethany in the
hopes of getting custody of and eventually adopting Child A, her granddaughter.
Bethany Adoption Worker 1 gave her little opportunity to visit Child A and seemed to
have already decided to continue the recommendation of the foster parent to adopt.
Grand Parent 1 stated that while she was willing and able to provide a home to Child A,
she also believed that Grand Parent 2 was also a great choice to provide care to Child
A and that Grand Parent 2 was also not allowed a fair opportunity to adopt Child A.

2
Grand Parent 2 stated that after the completion of Special Investigation 2009c0110062,
she was given the opportunity to visit her granddaughter, Child A, for one hour a month
at Bethany. Grand Parent 2 estimated that she had five one-hour visits In the seven
months since the initial complaint [Special Investigation 2009c0110062] was resolved.
Bethany Adoption Worker 1 told her that she was not allowed longer or more frequent
visitation. Recently, Bethany Adoption Worker 1 told her that he was going to
recommend that Child A be adopted by her foster parent because Child A was bonded
to her and because Grandmother 2’s home did not provide sufficient space for Child A
to be placed. Grandmother 2 believed that it would have been impossible for her to
bond to Child A in the five hours that she had been allotted and also expressed
frustration that she had repeatedly told Bethany Adoption Worker 1 that she intended to
move to an available home, owned by her family, that would provide sufficient living
space for her and Child A. Bethany Adoption Worker 1 insisted on measuring and
assessing her current one-bedroom apartment and declined to visit and assess the
other home. Grand Parent 2 stated that she missed two foster parent classes when she
was ill, but stated that Bethany Adoption Worker 1 also told her not to worry about
completing training to become a foster parent. When told that the classes were required
to be considered for the placement and adoption of Child A, Grand Parent 2 committed
to immediately register for the classes and called later to confirm that she did. Grand
Parent 2 noted that she successfully raised four of her own children, raised 16 relatives
when the family determined the need for her involvement, adopted one niece, had twice
been licensed as a foster parent by Bethany in the past [License #s CF410212773 &
FH4152960], and had cared for three foster children.

Bethany Adoption Worker 1 stated that he did not say that he intended to recommend
that that Child A be adopted by her foster mother. He told Grand Parent 2 that he “was
leaning that way.” Bethany Adoption Worker 1 also stated that he told Grand Parent 2,
“Attachment [bonding] was a significant consideration in making his recommendation.”
Bethany Adoption Worker 1 also noted that Grand Parent 1 completed all training
requirements to be a foster parent but that Grand Parent 2 missed two classes because
of illness and could not yet be licensed or considered for the placement of Child A.
Bethany Adoption Worker 1 stated that he would have evaluated the other home prior to
making a recommendation for the adoption of Child A.

The adoption file of Child A contained the 2009 Adoption Assessment of Foster Parent
1, recommending that she be allowed to adopt. The file also contained a nearly
completed draft of the Adoptive Home Assessment of Grand Parent 2. The draft report
lacked a recommendation. There was no assessment of Grand Parent 1.

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.

3
 ANALYSIS: Special Investigation 2009c0110062 previously established that
relative placement was not properly considered before and after
the termination of parental rights. Because relatives were again
not given a suitable amount of time to create a bond with Child
A, Bethany Adoption Worker 1 could not fairly assess the
relative’s ability to care for Child A and allowed Child A to
continue to bond to Foster Parent 1 for an additional six
months.

CONCLUSION: REPEAT VIOLATION ESTABLISHED

ALLEGATION:

Child A, an African American, was placed in a Caucasian foster home in a Caucasian

community, creating a situation in which she would have no exposure to her culture and
heritage.

INVESTIGATION:

Grand Parent 1 and Grand Parent 2 individually expressed concerns that in addition to
multiple family members not being considered for placement at the time of the removal
of Child A from her mother, Child A’s placement in a Caucasian home, in a Caucasian
community, deprived her of her culture and heritage. As an example, Grand Parent 2
expressed concern that Child A’s African American Hair was not properly being cared
for – resulting in it being brittle, breaking, and not looking pretty.

The adoption file of three-year-old Child A did not contain an assessment that
addressed consideration of this issue.

APPLICABLE RULE
R 400.12404 Placement.
(4) 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.

ANALYSIS: Because Child A’s racial, ethnic, and cultural identity, heritage,
and background were not assessed by the agency; the impact
of placing her in a racially dissimilar family and community
cannot be evaluated.

CONCLUSION: VIOLATION NOT ESTABLISHED

4
IV. RECOMMENDATION

With an acceptable corrective action plan, it is recommended that no change be

made to the license of this private child placing agency.

4/30/2010

Steve Ragsdale Date

Licensing Consultant

Approved By:

05/14/10
Deborah Clark Date
Area Manager