23845 Lee Baker, Southfield, MI 48075
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of L & W Adult Foster Care Home
Pros
The owner and staff have made amazing progress with her daughter.- The owner is awesome.
- She has an amazing spirit.
- She does an awesome job in making sure the homes are very well taken care of.
- The staff is very well trained.
Cons
The job became a horrible toxic environment where management was careless about employees and only cared about clocking in.- They wouldn’t answer the phone in times of need, even for basic supply restocking.
- Employees were physically assaulted by patients and received no help or answers.
- The environment was drama-filled and exhausting for workers’ mental health.
- The home provider made comments about people’s appearance, making others uncomfortable.
Review
L & W Adult Foster Care Home in Southfield, MI appears best suited for families seeking a small, intimate, home-like environment led by a devoted owner who is perceived as deeply invested in each resident’s well-being. The strongest praise centers on personal warmth, trust in the owner, and a sense that residents are cared for with attention and pride. When the owner speaks, families hear a story of dedication to keeping homes well maintained and residents feeling at home. This setting tends to attract families who want a hands-on, relationship-focused approach rather than a large, corporate-operated atmosphere.
Those weighing alternatives should consider options with more standardized processes, larger staff pools, and documented, consistent care protocols. If stability of response, predictable management, and uniformity across shifts are priorities, a more established or bigger-scale facility may minimize the risk of variability in experiences. Also, for families who require clear boundaries and professional conduct across all staff, exploring other providers with broader oversight and formal grievance channels could be prudent. The overall impression from multiple voices suggests that this home’s strengths come with potential trade-offs that merit careful comparison.
On the positive side, the owner is repeatedly described as an extraordinary presence, energetic, compassionate, and focused on ensuring homes are well cared for. Staff are characterized as well trained, which translates into confidence about daily routines, safety precautions, and resident engagement. For families who have already seen tangible improvements in a loved one’s comfort and sense of belonging, these attributes can be decisive. In cases where the family is seeking a facility that values a person-centered touch and provides a sense of “home,” these elements carry meaningful weight and can offset some logistical concerns.
The more troubling notes revolve around organizational culture and interpersonal boundaries. One reviewer describes a work environment that felt toxic and poorly supported, with gaps in communication and responsiveness that could bleed into resident care during emergencies or busy times. Another reviewer reports uncomfortable behavior from the home provider, including comments about appearance. While these comments came from a single perspective, they signal a potential risk if boundaries, respect, and professional conduct are not consistently upheld. The existence of such concerns highlights a crucial reality: family decisions should weigh not just warmth and training, but also the reliability of leadership and the culture that surrounds everyday care.
The pros and cons do not exist in isolation; they interact to shape overall risk and reward. The owner’s strong, trust-building presence and the staff’s training offer a solid foundation for attentive, person-centered care that families crave. Yet the cited management and behavior concerns introduce questions about consistency, morale, and the possibility of troubled dynamics affecting resident experiences. For families where a trusted relationship with the provider and a warm, home-like setting are non-negotiables, these strengths may justify a closer look. For others, particularly those who require rigorous, uniform standards and unchanged daily rhythms across shifts, exploring alternatives is wise.
In the end, the decision hinges on tolerance for variability and the weight placed on personal connection versus formal structure. Prospective families should conduct thorough due diligence: visit the home, observe interactions, request to meet current residents and families, review care plans, verify licensing and staffing ratios, and ask pointed questions about emergency responsiveness and grievance handling. If the feedback aligns with a high-trust, home-like experience and a willing-to-adjust leadership style, L & W can be a meaningful fit. If, however, the emphasis is on rock-solid consistency, strict professional boundaries, and less exposure to leadership-driven culture, it would be prudent to compare other options more carefully before committing.
6 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
Detroit Metropolitan-Wayne County (18 miles away)
24-hour supervision
Activities of daily living assistance
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
A Detailed Exploration of Assisted Living Medicaid Waivers Across the United States
Comprehensive Residential Support and Assisted Living Solutions for Individuals with Disabilities
Comprehensive Supportive Living Arrangements for Adults with Disabilities