State licensing officials are taking the unusual step of moving to revoke the license of a residential care provider that treats troubled teen-agers at six homes in Baltimore County.
The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene alleges that Residential Care Network of Pikesville altered records, did not properly report runaways, failed to give adequate dental care to one client and violated clients' rights by taking their shoes and coats and restricting access to the refrigerator and telephone.
It is the second recent dispute involving group homes in Baltimore County. Last month, a proposal by another company to put a group home for juvenile offenders in well-to-do Worthington Valley drew furious opposition from residents.
In the Residential Care Network case, an administrative law judge last week upheld the state's allegations. The company has 21 days to appeal before the secretary of health and mental hygiene issues a final decision.
But already the Department of Human Resources, which had sent children to the homes, was moving them out, a department spokesman said.
Residential Care Network's lawyer, George Nilson, disputed many of the allegations and said the company will challenge the ruling. He was outraged that the state was removing children without a final decision on the company's license.
"This is a step in the proceedings," he said. "We're not at the conclusion of this process."
Nineteen teen-age boys are housed in Residential Care Network homes, he said.
In 1995, Catonsville residents complained that Residential Care Network was not properly supervising troubled teen-agers at its home on Pineburn Court. But state officials say the company's alleged violations surfaced during a routine inspection in September 1997.
Carol Benner, director of licensing and certification for the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said revoking a license is a last resort and that most operators agree to comply with state regulation before it happens. But last spring, the state concluded problems with Residential Care Network couldn't be solved.
Nilson, however, said the company often sought -- but did not receive -- help and advice from the state in developing a program to care for the troubled teen-agers.
Residential Care Network attempted to provide a homelike environment, keeping the clients for about two years, said Nilson. The company stopped taking referrals from the Department of Juvenile Justice about two years ago, he said. Most of the children were placed by local social service agencies or the state Department of Human Resources and had developmental problems.
Nilson said one employee apparently altered documents to cover up one client's running away, but said the employee left the company soon after the incident. He said runaways were always reported to police and caseworkers.
He said counselors at times took shoes and coats away from the children to keep them from running away, but never for more than 24 hours. He said two teen-agers were restricted from access to the refrigerator because they had eating disorders. He said two others were prevented from using the telephone because they were caught making harassing calls.
Pub Date: 3/10/99