resem nada eee t 02/02/2017 THY 9128 Pax "| QBPARD Rick Scott of “ey Govermor FNS Oe state of Florida p > De ent ni li Mike Garroll %, & Department of Children arid Families Secretary t) MYELEAMILIEG.COM Wiliam §$. D'Aluto STATE OF FLORIDA Regional Managing Director DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES To: A’Kelynn's Angels Learning Center Attention: Connle Gaffney 800 Havendale Bivd NW Winter Haven, Florida 33881 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED the Department is proposing to revoke your child care license number C10P00702 and impose a total adminiatrative fine of $2,330.00. The Department's authority and grounds to impose this sanction are explained below, 1. The Department of Children and Families is authorized by section 402.310, Florida Statutes, fo sanction A'Kelynn’s Angels Learning Center for violations of child care licensing standards In sectians 402.301 ~ 402.319, Florida Statutes, and chapter 66C-22, Florida Administrative Code. 2, _ My A’Kelynn’s LLC, is licensed under chapter 402, Florida Statutes, and chapter 65C-22, Florida Adminitrative Code, to operate a child care facility known as A'Kelynn’s Angels Learning Ceriter (hereinafter “facility") located at 800 Havendale Bivd, “er Haven, Florida 33881. The facility license is currently an ANNUAL LICENSE. 3 3. During an on-site visit to your facility on November 14, 2016, the Child Care Regulations Counselor and Child Protective investigator observed one staff member with seven children, one of which was an infant. 4, The foregoing facts violate 8. 402.305(4)(a)1, F.S., which states, “[flor children from birth through one year of age, there must be one child care personnel for every four children.” The facts also violate Rule 65C-22.001(4)(b)1, F.A.C., which provides that “[iln groups of mixed age ranges, where children under one year of age are included, one staff member shall be responsible for ne more than four children of any age group, at all times.” 5. The violation described above is a Class fl violation of child care licensing standards. it is the facility's second violation of the same licensing standard within a two year period. Your facility previously violated this standard on November 20, 2018 and the Departrnent issued an administrative complaint on June 10, 2016 imposing a Central Region ® 1055 U.S. Highway 17 Nerth ® Bartow, Florida 33930 Mission: Protect the Vulnerable, Promote Strong and Economically Salf-Sufficient Families, and : Advance Personal and Family Recovery and Resiliency Boor/ ees 92/02/2017 THO 9128 Fax $50.00 fine, which was not contested and has been paid. The fine for the current violation is $50.00. 6. On October 11, 2016, two child care regulations counselors made an on-site visit to your facility to conduct a routine Inspection and to investigate a complaint. During the routine Inspection, it was ‘discovered that one of your employees, Sandy Charles, did not have a current signed CF-FSP Form $337, Child Abuse & Neglect Reporting Requirements, which must be signed annually by all child care personnel. 7. The foregoing facts violate Rule 65C-22.006(4)(c), F.A.C. and Is a Class itl violation of licensing standards. This is your facility's third violation of the same licansing standard within @ two year period. Your facility previously violated this standard on May 9, 2016 and May 4, 2016, when it was discovered that Ruth Rizzo and Charmoeshia Griffin, respectively, did not have a current CF-FSP Form §537 on file, The fine for the current violation Is $25.00, 8. — The allegations contained in the complaint received by the Department on October 11, 2016 were that the owner's ex-hueband wae seen at the facility while children were present. The owner admitted that her ex-husband does come to the facility on occasion, but is never atone with children. The Department contacted the Early Leaming Coalition and spoke to Cindy Morris and Lisa Clark, Me, Clark confirmed that she had observed the owner's ex-husband, Andrew Gaffney, at the facility and unsupervised with children. Mer statement was that she observed Mr. Gaffney interacting with children with no other staff members present. Ms. Morris confirmed that she Is familiar with Mr. Gaffney and that it was indeed him present at that time. Upon Investigation, the Department discovered that Mr. Gaffney has not had any background screening completed. Further investigation revealed that Mr. Gaffney has a prior disqualifying offense for Lewd Assault on a Child, which precludes him from being present in a child care facility. 9. The foregoing facts violate *. 402,305(2), F.S., which requires all child care personnel to undergo Level [I background screening as provided in chapter 435. Further, s. 436.06(2)(a), F.S. provides that ‘[ajn employer may not hire, select, or otherwise allow an employee to have contact with any vulnerable person that would place the employes in a role that requires background screening until the screening process is completed and demonstrates the absence of any grounde for the denial or termination of employment.” This violation is a Clase | violation of licensing standards and the fine for the violation is $500.00. 10. On September 26, 2016, the Depariment received a complaint alleging that the facility van is over capacity in the momings causing the. children to have litte room to move around or possibly not have seat belts to wear, it was further alleged that one chlid stays In @ car seat, but is placed on the floor between the driver and passenger seats, A Child Care Regulations Couriselor and a Child Protective Investigator met the facility van at the home of D.O,(1), D.O.(2), and D.O.(3), The Child Care Regulations Counselor observed D.0.(1) being littad from between the driver and passenger seat @eezsoea “92/02/2027 vHU 9:33 FAX goo3a/o0s and handed to the mother, who was waiting in the driveway. When all three of the D.O, children had exited the van, the Child Care Regulations Counselor and. the Child Protective Investigator got into the van and observed two sets of children in the firet and second rows sharing seat belts and a child in the third row not Wearing any seat belt. The children were counted and {t waa determined that in addition to the three D.O. children, there were 13 children on the van with three adulte, for a total of 19 people. According to the manufacturet’s specifications for that specific van, the total capacity is 12 passengers. The driver of tha van became very uncooperative and refused to allow the Department employees any further acoeags to the van, shutting the doors and driving away. The mother of the D.O. children advised the Department that she has been having issues with the transportation for 3 to 4 months and that her youngest child, D.0.(1), is always on the floor of the van rather than In an approved safety restraint. 11. The foregoing facte violate s. 402.305(10), F.S., and Rule 65C-22.001(6)(d), F.A.C. In that the maximum number of individuals transported in a vehicle may not exceed the manufacturer's designated ceating capacity or the number of factory installed seat belts. 12, The violation described above is a CLASS I violation of child care licansing standards, The fine imposed for this violation ts $600.60. 13. The facts outlined in Paragraph 11 also violate s. 402.305(10), F.S., and Rule 65C-22.001(6)(e), F.A.C. in that each child, when transported, must be in an individual factory Installed seat belt or fadarally approved child safety restraint. 14. The violation described above is a GLASS | violation of child care licensing Standards. The fine imposed for this violation le $600.00. 15. _ Finally, the facts outlined in Paragraph 11 also violate s. 402,305(10), F.S., and Rule 65C-22.001(8)(e), F.A.C, In that children under the age of one year are required to be In a federally approved child safety restraint. 18. The violation described above Is # CLASB | violation of child care licensing standards. The fine imposed for this violation is $800.00. 17. Also on September 26, 2016, the Child Care Regulations Counselor and the Child Protective Investigator made an on-site visit to the facility to address the complaint with the facility owner. While there, the files of multiple children were reviewed and it was discovered that the child, T.S. did not have a current Florida Certificate of Immunization on file. 18. The foregoing facts violate Rule 6§C-22.006(2), F.A.C. which requires all children in care to have a current, complete and properly executed Florida Certificate of Immunization form Part A-1, B, or C, DH 680 or the Religious Exemption from Immunization form, DH 681 on file for as long as the children are enrolled, “ ga/oas20n7 ray 9134 Fax 19. The violation described above Is a:Ciasa ill violation of a child care licensing standard and Is the facility's third violation of the same licensing standard in a two year period. The facility previously violated this licensing standard on April 28, 2016, when it was discovered that K.T and K.T. did not have current immunization records; and on May 4, 2015 when the Department discovered that G.N., S.M., and G,W, did not have current Immunization records on file. The fine for the. current violation is $25.00. 20. On August 12, 2018, the Department received a complaint that a child, P.T., was not being properly supervised while at the facility and had come home on multipla occasions with unexplained bruising, The most reoant incident occurred on August 10, 2016. The Child Care Regulations Counselor met with P.T.'s mother who advised that she has two children who attend the facility, She also advised that she went to the facility on August 10, 2016 to pick up her children and P.T. was observed with a large brulee on his forehead and a mark on his nose. The mother stated that she questioned the facility about the incident and that they had tried to provide her with an Incident report. She noted, however, that they refused to let her read the report and snatched it away when she tried to read it closely, The child indicated that R.R. had pushed him to the floor and bit him on the back. According to P.T., the teacher saw the incident, but failed to intervene. » 21. The foregoing facts violate Rule @5C-22,001(5)(a), F.A.C., which detines direct supervision as “...actively watching and directing children’s activities within the same room or designated outdoor area, and responding to the needs of each child." 22. The violation described above is a CLASS II violation of child care licensing standards and is the facility's third violation of the same Class I! liceneing standard in a two year period. The previous violations on March 24, 2016 and November 20, 2015 were addressed in an administrative complaint Issued on June 10, 2016 which impased a fine of $60.00. The facility did not contest the fine and it has been paid. The fine for the current violation is $60,00. , 43. As part of the investigation of the aforementioned complaint, the Child Care Regulations Counselor made an on-site visit to the facility on August 12, 2016. During the walk through, the Child Care Regulations Counselor observed holes in the walls throughout the facility as wall as peeling paint, 24. The foregoing facts: violate Rule 65C-22.001(1), F.A.C., which requires all facilities to be clean, in good repair and free from health and safety hazards. The violation is a Clase fll violation of child care licensing standards and is the facility's fifth violation of the same licensing standard in a two year period. The first such violation was on May 4, 2015, far which the facility: was fired $25.00 in an adminietrative complaint issued on January 15, 2016. The second such violation occurred on October 9, 2015, for which the facility was fined $30.00 in an administrative complaint issued on February 10, 2016. Neither administrative complaint was contested nor have both fines been paid. The third violation occurred on April 28, 2016 when the facility was observed to have holes in the wail in the bathroom and a broken toilet. The fine for thie violation @0od/o08 "92/02/2017 vay 9:34 FAX weos/ove is $26.00. The fourth violation occurred an duly 6, 2016 when the facility was observed with holes in the walls near the infant room and in the dining area as well as electrical outlets without safety covers, The fine for this violation is $30.00. The fine for the August 12, 2016 violation is . 25. On May 27, 2016, while conducting a re-inspection, the Child Care Regulations Counselor observed the facility conducting a fire drill, During the drill, the staff members failed to take @ current attendance record outside in order to account for each of the children. = ; 26. The foregoing facts violate Rule 65C-22.002(7), F.A.C. and Is a Claes Il violation of child care licensing standards. {t is the facility's second violation of the same licansing standard in @ two year period. The facility previously violated this standard on May 9, 2016 while the Child Care Regulations Counselor was conducting a Renewal Inspection and again observed the staff’ members fail to take @ current attendance record outside while conducting a fire drill. The fine for the current violation is $60.00. 27, Also on May 8, 2016 during the Renewal inspection, the Child Care Regulations Counselor determined that there was no personne! file for Stephany Gafiney, 28. The foregoing facts violata Rule 66C-22.006(4), F.A.C, and is @ Class Ill violation of child care licensing standards. It is the facility's third violation of the same licensing standard within a two year period. The facility previously violated this standard on November 3, 2016 when it wae discovered that Jakenya Johnson had no personnel file and on October 8, 2015 when it was discovered that neither dakenya Johnson nor Karen Graham had personnel files. The fine for the current violation is $25.09. 29, Pursuant to s. 402.310, F.S., the Department may deny, suspend, or revoke a license or registration for a violation of any provision of s8. 402.301 - 402.319, F.S. Further, purauant to Rule 65C-22.010(2)(b), F.A.C., the Departmant {s permitted to impose a fine, not to exceed $600.00, and is required to issue an administrative complaint to deny, suspend, or revoke the licanse for three (3) or more violations of Class ! standards. In addition to the violations described in Paragraphs 8 and 11, which total four (4) Claas. violations, your facility aleo had @ Class | violation on March 4, 2016 when fase information was provided to the Child Care Regulations counselor regarding children in care in violation of s. 402.319(1)(f), F.6. The Department issued an administrative complaint on June 10, 2016 imposing a $500.00 fine for the violation, which you falled to contest. As such, the facility now has a total of five (5) Class | Violations in the past year, For this reason, the Department is proposing to revoke your license number C10P00702, RIGHT l TIVE PROCEE IF YOU BELIEVE THIS DECISION IS IN ERROR, YOU MAY REQUEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENCLOSED “NOTIFICATION OF RIGHTS UNDER CHAPTER 120, FLORIDA STATUTES" 02/02/2017 THY 9:35 Fax 006/908 Fi 3 | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foragoing has been furnished by hand delivery to Connie Gaffney, clo A'Kelynn’s Angels Learning Genter 800 N Havendale Bivd, Winter Haven, FL 33884, this 31st day of January, 17, Patricia Child Care Regulations Counselor “ ga/p2/2027 may 9:36 PAX NOTIFICATION OF RIGHTS UNDER CHAPTER 420. FLORIDA STATUTES F YOU BELIEVE THE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION. IS IN ERROR, YOU MAY EQUEST AN ADMINISTRATI You must submit your request for an administrative hearing to the Department at the following addresses: ; Cheryl D. Westmoreland, Esquire tt —___ Assi stant Regional Counsel; Circutt™ 1056 Us HWY 17, North Bartow, FL 39830 IF YOUR REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING IS NOT RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY THE ABOVE DEADLINE, YOU WILL HAVE WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO A HEARING AND THE DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED ACTION WILL BE © FINAL, ANY DENIAL, SUSPENSION, REVOCATION OR OTHER ACTION CONCERNING YOUR LICENSE OR REGISTRATION WILL BE EFFECTIVE ON THAT DATE OR-ON ANY LATER EFFECTIVE DATE STATED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT, AND ANY PENALTY OR FINE IMPOSED MUST BE PAID WITHIN 30 pays THEREAFTER OR ANY EARLIER TIME PROVIDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE MPLAINT. if you disagree with the facts stated in the Department's administrative complaint, you may request a formal administrative hearing under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, At @ formal hearing, you may present avidence and arguments on all issues involved, and question the witnesses called by the Department. You have the tight to be répresented by counsel or other qualified representative. If you do not disagrée with the facts stated in the Department's administrative complaint, you may request an informal administrative hearing under section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. At an informal hearing, you may present your argument or a written statement for consideration by the Department. You have the right to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative. Your request for an administrative hearing must meet the requiremente of Rule 28- 106,2015(5), Florida Administrative Code, must be prepared legibly on 8% by 11 inch white paper, and include all of the following items: (4) Your name, address, email address (if any} and telephone number, 007/008 "“g2/92/2017 rau 9:36 Pax (b) The narne, address, email address (if any) and telephone number of your attorney or qualified representative, if any. (c) A statement requesting an administrative heating. d) A statement of all facts in the administrative complaint with ' which you disagree. If you do not disagree with any of the facts stated in the administrative complaint, you must say so, (e) A staternent of when and how you received the administrative complaint. (f) A statement identifying the file number of the administrative complaint, If shown on the administrative complaint. vossoos Section 120.566, Florida Statutes, and rule 28-108.201 (4), Florida Administrative Code, require the Department to diamies your request for hearing if it is not in substantial compliance with the requirements above. Mediation as described in section 120.573, Florida Statutas, is not available. However, other forms of mediation or informal dispute resolution may be available after a timely request for an administrative hearing has been received, if agreed to by all parties, and on such terms as agreed to by all parties. The right to an administrative proceeding not affected when mediation or informal dispute resolution does not result in a settlement.

Docket for Case No: 17-001431