MIAMI – Two weeks after the Miami Herald published an investigative series revealing how elderly Floridians are taken into state custody and moved into substandard elder care facilities with almost no court oversight, state leaders issued a statement criticizing journalists for “a fundamental misrepresentation” of how Florida’s elder protection system works.

The series, called “The Gray Market,” was published on April 2. The Herald collected state data that show how nearly 95% of elders removed from their homes for their own welfare never appear before a judge or speak with an attorney. Some seniors’ lives were upended when they were sent to assisted living facilities with poor records of care — against their will and without the knowledge of loved ones. Some were moved into homes that a separate department, the Agency for Health Care Administration, was seeking to close.

The Department of Children and Families repeatedly declined to answer questions from the Herald about its Adult Protective Services program. On Friday, 16 days after publication of the series and a day after the Herald quoted Florida lawmakers saying they want to reform the program, the agency asked the Herald to “update” its reporting. The agency defended the program, which investigates claims of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, and has the power to take custody of adults deemed vulnerable.

Morgan Jones, DCF deputy chief of staff, stated the series was “misleading,” and carried the “risk [of] creating unnecessary fear, which may discourage vulnerable individuals and families from seeking” services from the agency.

Jones took issue with the series’ finding that, in Miami-Dade County, one caseworker has sole authority over where elders or disabled adults are relocated after being taken into custody.

The finding was partly based upon the conclusions of a 2022 DCF Inspector General report stating that the agency had given Miami caseworker Tania Hernandez control over the placement of elders, taking sensitive decisions out of the hands of adult protection investigators who worked directly with elders and their families to determine the most appropriate facility.

In her letter, Jones said: “At no point, does [Adult Protective Services] act unilaterally. The policies, processes and operational tools utilized by the APS program were developed by qualified medical professionals and are executed in coordination with vulnerable adults, their support systems, law enforcement, emergency medical personnel, treating physicians and with judicial oversight, as necessary, to ensure that those we serve can be supported and remain in the least restrictive setting while prioritizing safe, appropriate care.”

Services provided to elders who were left in their own homes included “transportation support, therapeutic services, adaptive equipment, and home modifications,” Jones wrote. More than 90% of the elders and disabled adults who encountered the program received such services, she said.

Jones said adult protection workers “may facilitate placement only when all preventative options have been exhausted and … under clearly defined legal conditions,” such as a judge’s order, with the adult’s “informed consent” at his or her request, or when approved by a guardian.

“APS initiates judicial intervention only when there is reasonable cause to believe a vulnerable adult has been the victim of abuse, neglect or exploitation, lacks the capacity to consent to protective services and when no other authorized decisionmaker is available,” Jones wrote. She said that, in the small percentage of cases where a hearing is requested, the agency “notifies the vulnerable adult’s spouse, guardian, legal counsel and, when known, adult children or next of kin.”

The Herald’s reporting casts doubt on some of DCF’s claims.

Documents reviewed by reporters indicated that not every elder who was removed from his or her home and relocated without judicial oversight was competent to consent to the move. One 76-year-old woman was moved into three different assisted living facilities by DCF administrators, though the agency’s own records documented that she was hallucinating, being given psychiatric medications and lacked “capacity to consent,” records said.

Legal scholars questioned whether elders were protected by a policy that allowed caseworkers to both take elders into custody and determine whether they have the cognitive acuity to make informed decisions.

“The question becomes, are people being treated as if they are voluntarily consenting to services who are not voluntarily consenting to services?” said a Yale Law School distinguished scholar in elder law.

Relatives of several elders — adult children, a sister and family members with power of attorney — told the Herald they were never told when or where their loved one was relocated.

The daughters of two DCF clients said they had to search for their parents after they were moved to assisted living facilities without consultation or notification. The niece of one 79-year-old man called emergency rooms and police after her uncle vanished, she said. In three cases reported on by the Herald, close friends who considered themselves responsible for elders who had no family member nearby to help, said they never found their friends’ final destination before they died.

©2026 Miami Herald. Visit at miamiherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.