Opinion ID: 2630007
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assisted living home

Text: The trial court found an unhealthy, excessive exposure to and reliance upon the home health care business with this child. Judge Savell noted that it is not always a pleasant business and that patients wander, act unpredictably, and ultimately die. He agreed with testimony that clients should not be present in the residential quarters and expressed worry that a client had napped in Bryanna's bed. He also expressed concern that employees of a care facility [were] substitute parents and stated: you can't rely on the charges, the wards, the elderly patients for whom you care to be a social outlet, friends, roommates or bed-mates of a child. While acknowledging that she operates an assisted living home, Laurie argues that it should be a non-issue. She points to the testimony of Ms. Kathleen Evans, a care coordinator for the state, for the proposition that the contact between Bryanna and the patients is actually beneficial. She also complains that Michael's testimony provided the only evidence of any detriment, and that this evidence consisted only of the one-time nap incident. The facts in the record were sufficient for the court to find the assisted living home a concern. There was evidence of troubling aspects of this living arrangement, even if it was something of an exaggeration to refer to clients as Bryanna's social outlet, friends, roommates. First, Laurie conceded that a client had indeed napped in Bryanna's bed for forty-five minutes. Her excuse  that the client wanted to watch I Love Lucy and there was apparently no other television available  did not satisfy the trial court. Although there was no evidence that this incident negatively affected Bryanna, she found it significant enough to mention to Michael. Second, the evidence showed that one of Bryanna's regular babysitters was an employee of the facility. As Laurie was enrolled in classes and held a second part-time job, Bryanna was often in the employee's care before or after school. Third, Bryanna's excessive school tardiness was in part due to the operation of the facility  Mr. Witmer could not drive Bryanna to school until an employee arrived for the morning shift, since elderly clients cannot be left without some supervision. Laurie attempted to offset this evidence with the testimony of Kathleen Evans. Ms. Evans, the care coordinator for the state, made regular biweekly visits to the care facility as part of her job, but she never saw the downstairs living quarters. She gave her personal opinion [8] that small children living in such a setting will not be traumatized if the parents handle it correctly. She explained that children could form bonds with the clients, and that if children are talked to and told about the cycles of life, . . . they can handle it . . . just as if . . . their father died or the brother died or a dog died. She added that the patients normally die in the hospital, not in the house. The testimony of Ms. Evans was apparently not entirely convincing to Judge Savell. It is the function of the trial court, and not this court, to determine the weight and effect of the testimony. [9] Ms. Evans's testimony can be viewed as supporting the notion that living in a home containing an assisted living facility could present unsettling and even frightening situations for a child, if not handled correctly. Combined with the napping incident, the employee babysitting, and the late arrivals to school, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding this living arrangement a concern and assigning some weight to it.