## Facts

- Sue Hong was licensed to operate an adult family home providing care to adults with special needs, including residents with mental-health conditions.
- Hong hired Theo LaFargue to live in the home and help care for residents.
- Hong did not collect enough information to run a required background check on LaFargue and did not provide him training on caring for adults with mental-health needs.
- A few weeks after LaFargue began working, a nurse overheard LaFargue telling resident K.K. that K.K. should not be living at the home and implying that K.K. was faking her mental-health issues.
- The nurse reported what she heard to Hong. Hong told LaFargue he was fired, but agreed he could continue living and working in the home for eight more days while he looked for another place to live.
- That same day, a volunteer witnessed LaFargue verbally and psychologically abusing K.K. for about 90 minutes. The volunteer tried to locate assistance, but Hong had left LaFargue alone to care for the residents.
- Hong learned about the volunteer’s report two days later but took no action in response, and LaFargue continued to provide at least some of K.K.’s care.
- Two days after that, Hong was notified that LaFargue had repeatedly unzipped his pants and adjusted his genitals in front of K.K. and told sexual jokes to K.K.
- Hong again took no action and continued to allow LaFargue to live in the home and provide care (sometimes unsupervised) for another four days, until the eight-day period ended.
- The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) revoked Hong’s adult family home license.
- Hong challenged the revocation through administrative review and then in superior court, but each reviewing body affirmed. Hong then appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported DSHS’s findings that Hong failed to protect a vulnerable resident from abuse and neglect.
2. Whether DSHS acted within its authority in revoking Hong’s adult family home license based on Hong’s continued use of LaFargue as a caregiver after receiving reports of misconduct.
3. Whether the revocation decision and sanction were arbitrary or capricious under Washington administrative law standards.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment upholding DSHS’s revocation of Hong’s adult family home license.
- The court held that the administrative record contained substantial evidence supporting the findings that Hong failed to take reasonable steps to protect K.K. after being informed of repeated, escalating misconduct by LaFargue.
- The court upheld DSHS’s authority to impose revocation based on violations tied to resident safety and the licensee’s failure to respond to reported abuse.

## Legal Principles

- Adult family home licensees are responsible for resident safety and must take reasonable steps to protect residents from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, including when the risk comes from a caregiver in the home.
- Under Washington’s Administrative Procedure Act, agency factual findings are upheld on judicial review when supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record; courts do not reweigh witness credibility or substitute their view of the facts.
- An agency’s choice of sanction in a licensing matter is generally upheld unless it is arbitrary or capricious, meaning willful and unreasoning action without regard to the facts and circumstances.
- A licensee’s failure to screen, train, supervise, and promptly remove or restrict a caregiver after receiving reports of harmful conduct can support findings of neglect and justify license discipline, including revocation.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed DSHS’s revocation of Sue Hong’s adult family home license because the record supported findings that Hong left a vulnerable resident unprotected despite multiple reports of serious verbal, psychological, and sexual misconduct by a live-in caregiver, and the agency’s decision to revoke the license was within its lawful discretion and supported by the evidence.


Hong v. Department of Social and Health Services, 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 162 (2013)