Walcott v. Department of Children and Families

Earl Walcott v. Department of Children and Families

No. HHBCV156028331S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Britain, New Britain

February 7, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Sheila A. Huddleston, Judge.

The plaintiff, Earl Walcott, appeals from the final decision of the Department of Children and Families (department or DCF) substantiating an allegation of sexual abuse and upholding his placement on the department's central registry as a person who poses a risk to children. The plaintiff argues that the department erred in failing to credit his testimony rather than the hearsay statements of a teenaged complainant and in concluding that the complainant's hearsay statements were reliable and probative. He further argues that the department unduly redacted the investigation protocol that documented the department's investigation into the alleged abuse. The department argues, to the contrary, that the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing that the department's decision was not supported by substantial and reliable evidence. It further argues that the redaction of the protocol was in accordance with the law and principles of due process. For the reasons stated below the court concludes that the plaintiff has not met his burden of proving that the department's factual conclusions were not supported by the weight of substantial evidence on the record. Nor has the plaintiff established that he was denied due process by the limited redaction of information from the investigation protocol. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiff was the pastor of a Seventh-Day Adventist church in New Haven, Connecticut, from May 2003 to December 2008. He then moved to New York to serve as a pastor at another church there.

The complainant, C., ^[1] and her family were members of the plaintiff's church in New Haven. At some point, C.'s mother and brother engaged in joint counseling sessions with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff terminated those sessions. In 2008, when C. was thirteen years old, her mother took her to the plaintiff for counseling because C. had cut herself. C.'s mother could not recall how many counseling sessions C. had with the plaintiff, but did recall that it was more than one. C.'s counseling sessions with the plaintiff lasted thirty to forty-five minutes and C.'s mother would wait outside in her car during those sessions. C. stated that the sessions lasted for about four weeks, after which C. told her mother she felt better so that she could cease attending the sessions.

Around July of 2011, C. disclosed to her mother that the plaintiff had touched her inappropriately during the counseling sessions in 2008. C. also subsequently told L.M., then the minister of her church, who was upset and discouraged her from reporting the plaintiff because the plaintiff's family would not be able to handle the consequences. Eventually C. told a second minister, A.S., who asked her to put her complaint in writing. On January 12, 2012, church employees received a letter from C., dated January 8, 2012 that conveyed her complaint against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was placed on administrative leave from the church on January 12, 2012.

In her letter, C. reported that during her first counseling session with the plaintiff, he had at first prayed with her and discussed her cutting behavior. The plaintiff told her that if she continued to cut her arm she could hurt herself to the point of suicide. Near the end of the session, the plaintiff's gaze made C. feel uncomfortable. He then approached her, put his arm around her, and kissed her neck. Later in the same session, he grabbed her arm, rubbed it, and kissed it. C. did not tell her mother about the plaintiff's conduct because she was scared and speechless.

C reported that on later occasions the plaintiff continued to take actions to grab her, sometimes putting his hand into the top of her dress, grabbing her bust area, and kissing her. He cautioned her that if she said something, no one would believe her because she was " known as a liar in this church."

After the plaintiff moved to New York, he invited C.'s mother to sing at his new church on several occasions. On one such occasion when C. was with her mother, the plaintiff offered to take C. on a tour of the church. When he was alone with her, he pushed her up against a wall and kissed her. C pushed him back and ran back to her mother. After that trip, C. did not return to the plaintiff's church when her mother was invited to sing there. She did not tell her mother what had happened at that time.

In her January 8, 2012 letter, C. reported that she told her mother what had happened in 2011, when her mother returned from a trip to Georgia. Her mother told her she believed her but she did not know how to handle the situation. C. further described continuing dreams of the plaintiff hurting her, bad memories, and worrying that someone else could be treated the same way she was treated. After C.'s letter was presented to the church in January 2012, the Northeastern Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church provided C. with counseling to address the harm the plaintiff had caused her.

In January 2013, a new president of the Northeastern Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventist church forwarded a copy of C.'s January 8, 2012 letter to the department, stating that he had been told it had previously been reported to the department but was unable to locate written confirmation of a report. The department then assigned April Millo, an investigative social worker, to investigate the allegations in C.'s letter. Millo contacted C.'s mother, who told her that C. was now attending a Christian boarding school out of state. Her mother said she sent C. to this school because she had been having problems in her school in Connecticut, where she had been threatened to be shot. Millo contacted C.'s school and was eventually able to arrange a telephone interview with C., who had recently turned eighteen years old. Millo attempted to reach C.'s mother on several occasions for an additional interview and sent two letters to her. C.'s mother testified that she received the letters and attempted to contact Millo but could not remember her name and was unable to reach her. The investigation concluded with a substantiation of the sexual abuse and a finding that the plaintiff's name should be placed on the department's central registry of individuals who have been substantiated for child abuse or neglect and who pose a risk to children.

The plaintiff requested an administrative hearing to challenge the substantiation and placement on the registry. Before the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel received a heavily redacted copy of Millo's investigation protocol. Return of Record (ROR), Exhibit 20. The plaintiff's counsel filed a request for an unredacted investigation protocol, to which the department objected. The department stated that it did not object, however, to the hearing officer's in camera review of the unredacted protocol. The hearing officer agreed to conduct an in camera review. She advised the plaintiff that if he objected to her hearing the appeal after conducting that review, the case would be reassigned to a new hearing officer. ROR, Exhibit 13. After conducting her review, the hearing officer ordered the department to provide the plaintiff with a revised redacted protocol in which the only information to be redacted was information concerning C.'s date of birth, information regarding her school, the location of the school, and names of persons contacted at her school. Id. The hearing officer specifically directed the department not to redact an allegation summary listing the Seventh-Day Adventist church as the second perpetrator, the complete response from C.'s mother, and all attempts at contacting the mother. A revised redacted protocol was furnished to the plaintiff in compliance with the hearing officer's order. ROR, Exhibit 17. The plaintiff did not request that a different hearing officer preside over the hearing.

At the substantiation hearing, Millo testified regarding her investigation and reported statements made by C. in her telephone interview. C.'s mother, called as a witness by the plaintiff, testified about C.'s counseling with the plaintiff and C.'s eventual disclosure to her mother of the plaintiff's actions. She testified that she had taken C. for counseling with the plaintiff when C. was thirteen. She could not recall how many counseling sessions C. had attended but it was more than one. She also testified that C. had gone with her to New York on an occasion when she went to sing in the plaintiff's new church. After that trip, C. pleaded with her mother that she did not want to go to the New York church again.

The plaintiff testified that he had counseled C. only once, for about ten minutes before a Sabbath church service, and that he had never inappropriately touched C. He admitted that he had hugged her after praying with her. He further testified that he had counseled with C.'s mother and brother for about a year and had gone to meetings at C.'s brother's school. He testified that he had ended the counseling sessions with C.'s mother and brother after C.'s mother had an outburst at a school meeting that embarrassed him. He testified that he had recommended that C.'s mother and brother continue counseling with someone else.

In a final decision issued on November 20, 2014, the hearing officer specifically found that C.'s mother's testimony and C.'s statements about the plaintiff's conduct were credible. She expressly found the plaintiff's testimony that he had met with C. only once for ten minutes was not credible in light of C.'s...