L. D. v. Comm'r of Children & Families

217 Conn.App. 150

287 A.3d 617

L. D.

v.COMMISSIONER OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES^*

AC 45323

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 9, 2022

Officially Released December 27, 2022

L. D., self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

John E. Tucker, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, Kim Mathias, assistant attorney general, and Evan O'Roark, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

Alvord, Cradle and Suarez, Js.

ALVORD, J.

The plaintiff father, L. D., who is self-represented in this court,¹ appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of a hearing officer of the Department of Children and Families (department),² who upheld the department's decision to substantiate allegations of emotional neglect by the plaintiff against three of his children. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of emotional neglect.³ We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, as found by the hearing officer, and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff previously was married to the mother of his six children (children's mother). The children were born between the years of 2000 and 2008. In early 2016,⁴ after seventeen years of marriage, the children's mother filed an action to dissolve the marriage, and the ensuing dissolution proceedings were very contentious. Throughout the course of the dissolution proceedings, the police and the department were called multiple times "to deal with difficulties in the family's internal relations ...." Additionally, several complaints concerning the plaintiff's conduct, primarily asserted by the children's mother, were made to the police and the department.

The department received its first referral concerning the family on February 6, 2016 (February, 2016 incident), after the local police went to the family's residence after receiving a 911 hang up call from that residence. Upon arriving at the home, the police determined that the parents were engaging in a verbal altercation. The children's mother reported that the argument began when the plaintiff became angry at one of their children for wearing shoes in the house and the children's mother became upset because the plaintiff was yelling at the children, so she brought all six of the children into a bedroom. The plaintiff followed the children's mother into a back room, recorded the incident, and, at some point, called the police. The children's guardian ad litem,⁵ who later watched the recording, reported that the recording depicted both parents yelling at each other and that one of the children had spat on the plaintiff. The plaintiff was arrested that evening on a charge of disorderly conduct. He was subsequently charged with risk of injury to a child, and, related to those charges, "[p]rotection orders were issued." The criminal charges against the plaintiff were dismissed after he completed a diversionary domestic violence program.

On July 3, 2018, the children's mother complained to the police about an incident that occurred on June 27, 2018, when the plaintiff picked up his three youngest children, with whom he was participating in court ordered visitation, from their mother's residence. The plaintiff previously had asked one of those children, A, to bring with him a particular bag that the plaintiff had left in the home. A failed to bring the bag and told the plaintiff that it was not in the home. The plaintiff became enraged, which caused him to yell at the children, bang on the steering wheel, and drive his vehicle, containing the three children, in an erratic and dangerous manner (July, 2018 incident).⁶

A separate referral was made to the department after the July, 2018 incident. During the department's investigation into the incident, the three children, and one child who was at home and witnessed the incident, all reported that the plaintiff became irate upon learning of the missing bag, got out of the car, and began screaming and cursing. Additionally, they all reported that one of the children, S, attempted to get out of the car and that the plaintiff drove the car out of the driveway while her door remained open. While explaining the event to a department investigator, S began crying. The plaintiff acknowledged that there was a disagreement over the bag but felt that A was lying about the availability of the bag because they had discussed it the night before. Additionally, the plaintiff believed that the bag was in the home and that the children's mother had prevented the children from taking the bag.

On September 5, 2018, the department's Careline⁷ received a referral alleging that the plaintiff had hit two of his children, A and S, and left bruises and scratches on them during a visit two days prior (September, 2018 incident). At the time of the September, 2018 incident, the plaintiff was in the driver's seat of his vehicle, A was in the front passenger seat, and S was in the backseat with her sister, A. A. During the department's investigation of the September, 2018 incident, S had a healing bruise under her left eye. S reported that the plaintiff was angry because the children were not wearing sneakers, she saw the plaintiff hit A, she got between them and was hit in the face, and that A. A. was crying. A reported that the plaintiff was upset because he did not like what A and S were discussing and wanted them to talk about something else. When they stopped speaking altogether, the plaintiff became angry and hit A on the arm, and later dragged A out of the car, scratching his arm. Additionally, A reported that the plaintiff hit S "when she tried to get between [A] and [the plaintiff]." A. A. reported that she did not see the plaintiff hit A, but did see the plaintiff hit S. The day after the September, 2018 incident, the children were taken to their pediatrician who concluded that the marks on the children were consistent with their explanations, however, the pediatrician did not immediately make a referral to the department based on her observations. The plaintiff was arrested and charged with three counts of risk of injury to a child, two counts of assault in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the third degree following the September, 2018 incident.

Following its investigation into the February, 2016 incident, the department substantiated the allegations of emotional neglect against the plaintiff as to his six children. Additionally, following the July, 2018 incident, the department substantiated the allegations of emotional neglect related to that incident against the plaintiff as to his three youngest children. Finally, following the September, 2018 incident, the department substantiated the allegations of physical abuse as to S and A, substantiated the allegations of emotional neglect of the three youngest children, and recommended that the plaintiff's name be placed on the Central Registry of Persons Responsible for Child Abuse and Neglect (central registry). Thereafter, the plaintiff requested an administrative hearing to appeal from the substantiations and central registry determination.

An administrative hearing was scheduled for October 14, 2020, and rescheduled at the plaintiff's request for December 16, 2020. Prior to the rescheduled hearing, the plaintiff requested that the issues be adjudicated on the papers and both parties submitted documentary evidence for review by the hearing officer in making her determination.

On December 24, 2020,⁸ following a thorough review of the eighteen exhibits submitted by the parties, the hearing officer issued her written decision. Concerning the February, 2016 incident, the hearing officer reversed the department's substantiation of the allegations of emotional neglect against the plaintiff as to his six children. In her decision, the hearing officer emphasized the fact that "[t]he children were not interviewed during this investigation" and "there was no evidence presented by the department as to the children's impressions or responses to this incident." Rather, the hearing officer highlighted that "[t]he department's findings are all predicated on the [children's] mother's complaints and the charges filed against the [plaintiff], all of which were subsequently dismissed following [his] successful completion of a [diversionary] program." After summarizing the relevant facts, the hearing officer concluded that "[i]t is certainly possible that all six children heard the diatribe, and perhaps all six children observed it as well. It is equally possible that all six children were terrified and traumatized. However, the department has not established any of those scenarios with a preponderance of the evidence, and therefore, the allegations of emotional neglect must be reversed."

Concerning the July, 2018 incident, the hearing officer upheld the department's decision to substantiate the allegations of emotional neglect against the plaintiff as to his three youngest children. In reiterating the facts, the hearing officer emphasized "that the children provided consistent reports about what happened in the car that day," noted that "[t]he [plaintiff's] erratic behavior placed them at physical risk during the drive ... [and] [t]he children were justifiably frightened," and stated that "[S's] emotional response during her account of the incident [was] persuasive and lends additional credibility to the report." Notably, the hearing officer recognized "that the children's mother fueled both the [plaintiff's] ire and the children's fear during this period ... [h]owever, in this case, the children's disclosures were consistent and believable." Therefore, the hearing officer concluded that "[t]he [plaintiff's] conduct clearly demonstrated a serious disregard for the children's emotional well-being and the allegations of emotional...