Isabella D. v. Dep't of Children & Families

320 Conn. 215

128 A.3d 916

ISABELLA D. et al.

v.DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES et al.^*

No. 19451.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Oct. 13, 2015.

Decided Jan. 19, 2016.

Alan Giacomi, with whom were Robert S. Kolesnik, Sr., Waterbury, and, on the brief, Stephanie E. Cummings, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

John E. Tucker, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).

ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD, ESPINOSA and ROBINSON, Js.

EVELEIGH, J.

The sole issue in this administrative appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiff Isabella D.¹ lacks standing to appeal from the final decision of the defendant the Department of Children and Families (department)² finding that the alleged perpetrator was not responsible for allegations of sexual abuse and emotional neglect against the plaintiff and removing his name from the central child abuse and neglect registry (central registry).³ On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that she lacks standing to bring this action. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that she has a specific, personal and legal interest in the department's decision because her constitutionally protected interests in her reputation, privacy, safety, and family integrity were implicated as a result of the department's substantiation process, and that these interests were harmed by the department's decision. The plaintiff further claims that these interests were harmed by the alleged perpetrator's use of the department's decision in a collateral family court proceeding. In response, the department contends that the plaintiff was not classically aggrieved by its decision because the plaintiff cannot establish a specific, personal and legal interest in the substantiation process that is distinguishable from that of the general public. The department further claims that the plaintiff was not statutorily aggrieved because she is not within the zone of interests intended to be protected by the statutory scheme. We agree with the department and conclude that the trial court properly determined that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action.⁴

The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. As a result of a mandated reporter's anonymous referral, the department instituted an investigation into possible sexual abuse of the plaintiff pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–101g.⁵ Following the investigation, the department's investigator found the alleged perpetrator responsible for sexual abuse and emotional neglect of the plaintiff and placed the alleged perpetrator's name on the central registry. As a result of the alleged perpetrator's request for an appeal pursuant to § 17a–101k–4 (a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies,⁶ the department conducted an internal review and notified the alleged perpetrator of the decision to uphold the substantiation of sexual abuse and emotional neglect and the decision to place the alleged perpetrator's name on the central registry. Thereafter, the alleged perpetrator sought an administrative hearing. After a hearing, the hearing officer found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of substantiation of sexual abuse and emotional neglect by the alleged perpetrator. The hearing officer, therefore, reversed the department's finding of substantiation and removed the alleged perpetrator's name from the central registry.

Subsequently, the plaintiff sent a letter to the department requesting that the hearing officer reconsider the decision reversing the substantiation finding. As grounds for reconsideration, the plaintiff asserted that "without the opportunity to be notified of (let alone participate in), the hearings process, [the plaintiff] was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence in her own defense or to pursue challenges to the credibility, authenticity, reliability or admissibility of any of the evidence introduced by [the alleged perpetrator]." The hearing officer denied the plaintiff's request on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek reconsideration. As grounds for the decision, the hearing officer explained that because General Statutes § 4–181a⁷ solely permits a party to a contested hearing to file a petition for reconsideration and, because the plaintiff was not a party to the substantiation hearing, the plaintiff did not have standing to appeal the department's decision.

From that decision, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 4–183(a) of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.⁸ At the trial court, the department moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the administrative appeal. Following oral argument on the issue of standing, the trial court granted the department's motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.⁹

By way of background, we briefly summarize the substantiation process and the central registry scheme as set forth in General Statutes §§ 17a–101g¹⁰ and 17a–101k.¹¹ As this court has previously explained, " § 17a–101gsets forth the [department's] responsibilities upon receiving a report of abuse or neglect of a child: classification; evaluation; investigation; and determination of whether abuse or neglect has occurred." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Frank v. Dept. of Children & Families, 312 Conn. 393, 418, 94 A.3d 588 (2014). If, after an investigation into the report, the department has reasonable cause to believe that the child has been " ‘neglected’ " or " ‘abused’ " as defined by statute; General Statutes § 46b–120 (6) and (7) ; the allegations of misconduct are deemed substantiated.¹² Once the investigation is complete, the department must notify the child's parents or guardians, the alleged perpetrator, and the mandated reporter of the outcome of the investigation. Dept. of Children & Families, Policy Manual § 34–3–6 (Policy Manual).¹³

Section 17a–101k (a) requires the department to maintain a central registry of the names of individuals whom the department has found to have abused or neglected children pursuant to the investigative process. If the allegations of abuse or neglect are substantiated after the investigation, § 17a–101g (b) directs the department to additionally determine "whether: (1) [t]here is an identifiable person responsible for such abuse or neglect; and (2) such identifiable person poses a risk to the health, safety or well-being of children and should be recommended ... for placement on the child abuse and neglect registry...." See also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 17a–101k–3 (a) ; Policy Manual, supra, § 34–2–8. In some cases, however, the placement of the alleged perpetrator's name on the central registry is required. See Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 17a–101k–3 (b).¹⁴

"If the commissioner determines that a person should be listed on the [central] registry, that information is confidential, except where authorized specifically by statute or regulation, and unlawful disclosure is a criminal offense.... Statutes that authorize disclosure are limited to specific governmental agencies or persons directly involved with child protection and agencies that license persons providing child care services or that employ persons charged with child protection, such as the [department], the [D]epartment of [P]ublic [H]ealth and the [D]epartment of [S]ocial [S]ervices.... Mindful of the potential effect of such disclosures, § 17a–101k (b)(3) provides in relevant part: ‘Upon the issuance of a recommended finding that an individual is responsible for abuse or neglect of a child pursuant to subsection (b) of section 17a–101g, the commissioner shall provide notice of the finding ... to the individual who is alleged to be responsible for the abuse or neglect.’ " (Citations omitted.) Hogan v. Dept. of Children & Families, 290 Conn. 545, 570–71, 964 A.2d 1213 (2009).

Section 17a–101k further provides a two stage appeal process for individuals who have been substantiated as responsible for child abuse or neglect. Once an individual exercises his or her right to appeal the substantiation decision, "[t]he individual or the individual's representative may submit any documentation that is relevant to a determination of the issue and may, at the discretion of the commissioner or the commissioner's designee, participate in a telephone conference or face-to-face meeting to be conducted for the purpose of gathering additional information that may be relevant to determining whether the recommended finding is factually or legally deficient." General Statutes § 17a–101k (c)(2) ; see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 17a–101k–5. The individual is also provided access to all documents in the possession of the department relevant to the substantiation of abuse or neglect. General Statutes § 17a–101k (c)(1). In the event that the recommended finding of abuse or neglect is found to be "factually or legally deficient," the department must notify the individual of the decision to reverse the recommended finding. General Statutes § 17a–101k (c)(3) ; see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 17a–101k–5 (e). If the finding is upheld, the department must notify the individual of the right to request an administrative hearing. General Statutes § 17a–101k (c)(3) ; see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 17a–101k–5 (f) and (g).

Section 22–12–6 of the Policy Manual provides that the alleged perpetrator and the department are the only parties to the administrative hearing.¹⁵ Furthermore, although the hearing officer has the discretion to permit others to be present at the hearing, the Policy Manual specifically provides that "[t]he only authorized persons at the hearing shall be" the parties, their authorized representatives, and witnesses.

...