History
  • No items yet
midpage
143 Conn. App. 454
Conn. App. Ct.
2013
Read the full case

Background

  • DCF received an anonymous May 21, 2010 report alleging emotional and physical neglect of two minor daughters by their father; investigator Heather Howard substantiated the allegations and recommended placement on DCF’s central registry.
  • Substantiation hearing before a DCF hearing officer (Jan 4 & Feb 8, 2011) found repeated verbal and physical abuse of wife and older daughter, children fearful, anxious, and emotionally affected; investigator relied on interviews with mother, both daughters, and school staff.
  • Hearing officer found by preponderance that (1) emotional neglect occurred (adverse emotional impact; pattern or sufficiently egregious single acts), (2) physical neglect (exposure to family violence; dangerous conditions), and (3) the father posed a risk warranting registry placement (considering intent, severity, chronicity, and domestic violence).
  • Father petitioned for reconsideration and then appealed to Superior Court claiming (a) evidence was hearsay and unreliable, (b) due process violated, (c) investigator/hearing officer biased by reference to Iranian cultural material, and (d) insufficient evidence for registry placement.
  • Superior Court and this appellate panel affirmed: hearsay admissible if trustworthy; investigator’s cultural material not relied upon in findings; substantial evidence supported both substantiation and registry recommendation; no abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Substantial evidence supports substantiation of emotional neglect Father: evidence was hearsay, inconsistent, and arose from divorce; he denied neglect DCF: investigator/interviews and school observations are reliable, protocol disclosed, father admitted some conduct Held: substantial, probative evidence supports emotional neglect; court may not retry credibility
Substantial evidence supports substantiation of physical neglect Father: denied physically neglecting children; incidents taken out of context DCF: exposure to domestic violence (backhanding mother, pushing/shoving, incidents in car) created injurious conditions and adverse impact Held: substantial evidence supports physical neglect finding
Placement on central registry (intent, severity, chronicity, domestic violence) Father: no intent to harm; therapy shows remediation; insufficient proof for registry DCF: intent standard requires knowledge/resources and conscious failure; evidence of repeated violence, minimization, therapy but denial = risk Held: registry placement supported by evidence as to intent, severity, chronicity and domestic-violence factor
Due process / bias from cultural material (Iranian culture) Father: investigator relied on Moradian article about Iranian domestic violence; racial/national-origin bias prejudiced outcome DCF: investigator used article for cultural context; hearing officer excluded/avoided assessing culture and did not rely on it Held: no actual bias shown; cultural material not relied on in final decision; no reversible due-process violation

Key Cases Cited

  • Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Department of Social Services, 288 Conn. 790 (court explains limited scope of judicial review of administrative factfinding)
  • Carlson v. Kozlowski, 172 Conn. 263 (establishes factors for assessing trustworthiness of hearsay in administrative proceedings)
  • Family Garage, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 130 Conn. App. 353 (hearsay admissible in administrative hearings if sufficiently trustworthy)
  • Jim’s Auto Body v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 285 Conn. 794 (scope of review under Uniform Administrative Procedure Act is restricted)
  • O’Sullivan v. DelPonte, 27 Conn. App. 377 (administrative tribunals not strictly bound by judicial rules of evidence)
  • Elf v. Department of Public Health, 66 Conn. App. 410 (plaintiff must show actual, not potential, bias to overturn administrative decision)
  • Holley v. Sunderland, 110 Conn. 80 (appeal does not permit court to retry administrative facts)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: F.M. v. Commissioner of Children & Families
Court Name: Connecticut Appellate Court
Date Published: Jun 25, 2013
Citations: 143 Conn. App. 454; 72 A.3d 1095; 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 325; 2013 WL 2988940; AC 34861
Docket Number: AC 34861
Court Abbreviation: Conn. App. Ct.
Log In
    F.M. v. Commissioner of Children & Families, 143 Conn. App. 454