Opinion
HHBCV155017060S
02-27-2017
Duane W. et al. v. Department of Children and Families
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiffs, Duane W. and Roberta W., appeal the final decision of the Department of Children and Families (department or DCF), substantiating various allegations of physical and emotional neglect and emotional abuse and upholding their placement on the department's central registry as persons who pose a risk to children. The plaintiffs generally claim that there was no evidence supporting the findings of the hearing officer. The court concludes, to the contrary, that substantial evidence supported the hearing officer's decision, and the plaintiffs' appeal is therefore dismissed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The following facts are drawn from the hearing officer's finding of facts in the final decision, supplemented as to background information from the evidence in the record.
The plaintiffs are the maternal grandparents of A., a girl born in 1997, and L., a boy born in 2000. The children's parents are Donna M. and Luis M. Roberta is Donna's mother, and Duane is Donna's stepfather. A. and L. were removed from their parents' care because of their parents' substance abuse and chronic neglect. Roberta and Duane became guardians of the children in 2003.
The hearing officer's decision refers to Duane and Roberta as " appellants" rather than " plaintiffs."
The plaintiffs claim that they became the children's guardians in 2002, not 2003 as found by the hearing officer. There is conflicting evidence as to the date of their appointment as guardians in the record. The precise date, however, is immaterial to the hearing officer's findings.
In December 2003, Duane and Luis had an angry exchange in which Luis threatened Duane while they were both at a Dunkin Donuts. A few days later, when Donna was visiting the plaintiffs' home, Luis showed up and again exchanged words with Duane, threatening him. After the incident, the plaintiffs went to the police station to report Luis' threats. When the police told them there was not much they could do, Roberta then told the police that Luis had sexually abused A. about a year earlier. She explained that Jackie H., Donna's adult daughter from a previous relationship, had recently told Donna's sister that Luis had abused her (Jackie) when she was younger. After learning this, Roberta questioned A., eliciting a disclosure of abuse from her. Roberta told the police that A. had disclosed the abuse about two weeks earlier; Duane corrected her and said it had been a month earlier. Neither plaintiff had ever mentioned A.'s disclosure to anyone before that day at the police station.
The police reported the plaintiffs' statements regarding Luis's alleged sexual abuse of A. to the department, which began an investigation. During this 2003 investigation, A. was interviewed by an investigator at the department's Meriden office. Soon after the interview, the plaintiffs refused to cooperate further with the investigation, alleging that A. had told Roberta that the department's investigator had sexually abused A. during the interview. The department's special investigations unit investigated the allegation against the department's investigator. The allegations against the investigator were not substantiated.
Investigation of the plaintiffs' original report regarding Luis' alleged sexual abuse of A. was transferred to the department's Middletown office. It did not substantiate the allegation against Luis, who had been incarcerated for most of A.'s early childhood.
In May 2007, one of A.'s peers at school told the peer's mother that A. had said that her grandfather, Duane, touched her in private places and bit her while her pants were down. The peer's mother reported this to the school, which reported it to the department. The investigation was assigned to the department's Meriden office. A department investigator met with A. at school and A. denied making any such statements to her friends. A. did tell the investigator that Duane hit her and once tapped her on the back of the head.
The children's school raised additional concerns about the plaintiffs with the department. They observed that although the plaintiffs had been involved with the school in the past, they had been unresponsive to recommendations that L. needed to be tested for educational and emotional issues. School staff also reported that other parents complained about Duane's caustic and aggressive behavior. One parent complained that she had seen him behave in a very aggressive manner with another student.
When police and department investigators visited the plaintiffs' home, they saw cameras outside the house. The plaintiffs said that the cameras were there to keep their neighbors, with whom they had longstanding problems, " in line." Duane and Roberta refused to meet or speak with the department's worker due to their history with the department's Meriden office. They were furious that the school had reported the allegations to the department and had allowed the department to interview A. at the school. Shortly after this incident, they filed a notice of intent to home school the children and withdrew them from school.
The allegations based on the May 2007 report to the department were not substantiated. At the conclusion of that investigation, the plaintiffs were considering a move out of state.
Around the first of August in 2007, Duane called Donna and told her to " come pick up your fucking daughter, Chester the Molester." He said that he had found A. and L. together in a closet and L. told him that A. had touched his penis. Donna kept A. for the following weeks.
Later that month, Donna took A. to the police department to report that A. had disclosed that she had been sexually abused by Duane. Donna acknowledged that A. had made other allegations of sexual abuse before and she did not know what to believe. The police did not have appropriate personnel on duty to interview A., and the matter was referred to the department's Meriden office.
A. told the department's investigator that " Grandpa is very mean to me." She said he hit her with a belt or " did the other thing, " which she described as his climbing on top of her, laying down, and rubbing himself against her. She said he threatened that she would never see her mother again if she told anyone. A. also said that Roberta hit her with a wooden spoon and " sometimes gets out of control with the hitting and leaves lots of black and blues."
Without telling the plaintiffs about A.'s allegation of sexual abuse, Donna got their permission to take L. for a visit. He was then interviewed by the department's investigator. He reported that the plaintiffs hit him " real bad" with a spoon or a belt. He also said he was not allowed to say anything or talk to people from DCF. He was afraid of what would happen to him if Duane found out he was speaking with the investigator. He did say that A. had touched him but would not elaborate.
Jackie, A.'s and L.'s adult half-sister, was also interviewed. She had several concerns about the plaintiffs. She said she had witnessed A. being hit more times than she could count. She said that Duane cut A.'s hair himself, refusing to let her grow it long because she might use it to " seduce men." Jackie also heard Duane say, in front of A., " What kind of mother allows her husband to fuck her daughter." Jackie was afraid to confront Duane because he had limited her visitation with the children in the past when he was angry with her.
Donna told the department that she was not able to care for A. and L. She was cooperative with the department. On August 21, 2007, a department investigator who was meeting with Donna overheard a telephone conversation between Donna and Roberta. Roberta told Donna that Duane had just received a phone call from the police. Roberta told Donna not to cooperate with authorities because " we don't know what the fuck they're going to try to do to us." Roberta was in Massachusetts at the time of the phone call but told Donna that she would return to Connecticut the next day.
The record indicates that Donna put the speaker function of her cell phone on so that the investigator could hear Roberta.
On August 21, 2007, Donna called the investigator to report a conversation she had had with Duane that day. Duane told Donna that he was leaving the state and not returning because he was " nearly killed" by a police officer the previous day and he was not safe in Connecticut. He told Donna that he and Roberta were going to relocate " far, far away."
Neglect petitions were filed on August 23, 2007, and the department obtained an order of temporary custody for both children. The children were adjudicated neglected on October 9, 2007. The plaintiffs never appeared for any court proceeding. They did not respond to the police or to the department's attempts to meet with them. The plaintiffs claimed they never received notice of the hearings regarding the children, although Roberta subsequently acknowledged that the marshal had left papers on their front porch.
Eventually, Duane was arrested and criminally prosecuted as a result of A.'s claims. The matter was dismissed and there was no conviction.
The children were placed in separate safe homes. A. had to be assigned nearly round the clock one-on-one staffing because of sexualized behaviors. L. had to be evaluated for aggressive and " off the wall" behaviors. He reported seeing dead people and being locked in closets with skeletons. He said that he learned how to punch from Grandpa (Duane) because Grandpa used to punch him hard. In his forensic interview, he reported that he lived with the department investigator and that the investigator is the only person who hugs or kisses him. He would not stay in the interview room unless the investigator stayed in the room with him.
In her forensic interview, A. reported that Duane rubbed his hand against her privates and showed her his penis. She said it began when she was eight and happened numerous times. She said the incidents were a means of discipline and that she would also be hit with a belt.
As a result of the investigation commenced in August 2007, the plaintiffs were substantiated for physical abuse and physical and emotional neglect of A. and L. In addition, allegations of Duane's sexual abuse and emotional abuse of A. were substantiated.
The plaintiffs, as noted above, did not contact the department or appear at any of the court proceedings in 2007. Eight years later, however, on March 9, 2015, they filed a request for an internal review of the substantiation and placement on the registry, and if the decisions were not reversed, for an administrative hearing pursuant to § 17a-101k-6 of the department's regulations. An administrative hearing was held on April 22 and June 10, 2015. The social worker who investigated the August 2007 allegations testified, as did both Duane and Roberta. Both Duane and Roberta denied the department's allegations of neglect and abuse. Duane testified that the police, his neighbors, school staff, department staff, Donna and A. all lied. His contempt for the outside world, and especially for persons with authority, was " palpable." He became visibly angry during the proceeding, slamming his hand on the table. Roberta attempted to excuse his behavior by saying that he had been through a lot.
Following the hearing, on July 7, 2015, the hearing officer issued a final decision in which she reversed the substantiation against Duane for sexual abuse, concluding that A. had clearly suffered sexual abuse at some point in her childhood but that previous allegations had not been substantiated. In particular, she noted that the department did not believe that its Meriden social worker had sexually abused A. but did believe that Duane had, while Duane and Roberta believed that Luis and the social worker had abused A. but insisted that Duane had not. The hearing officer concluded that it was not possible to determine who in the past had actually abused A.
The hearing officer also reversed the substantiation of physical abuse against both Duane and Roberta. She observed that although they hit the children, corporal punishment is allowed in Connecticut, and no one in the school or community had ever reported seeing bruises or marks on the children.
The hearing officer upheld the substantiations of physical and emotional neglect by both Duane and Roberta, based primarily on their abandonment of the children when the August 2007 investigation began. She also upheld the substantiation of Duane's emotional abuse of A., based on degrading statements he made about A. in front of her and on such behaviors as keeping her hair cut short so that she would not " seduce men." Finally, she upheld the department's placement of both plaintiffs on the central registry. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
This appeal is brought pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § § 4-166 et seq., and in particular, General Statutes § 4-183. " At the outset, it is important to underscore that the scope of judicial review of an administrative agency's decision under § 4-183 is very restricted . . . [R]eview of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable . . . An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hogan v. Dept. of Children and Families, 290 Conn. 545, 560-61, 964 A.2d 1213 (2009). This court may not " retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact . . . Our ultimate duty is to determine, in view of all of the evidence, whether the agency, in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 561.
General Statutes § 4-183(j) provides: " The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. If the court finds such prejudice, it shall sustain the appeal and, if appropriate, may render a judgment under subsection (k) of this section or remand the case for further proceedings. For purposes of this section, a remand is a final judgment."
" In determining whether an administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing court must defer to the agency's assessment of credibility of witnesses . . . The reviewing court must take into account contradictory evidence in the record . . . but the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Frank v. Dept. of Children and Families, 312 Conn. 393, 411-12, 94 A.3d 588 (2014).
In this case, the plaintiffs argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the substantiation of (1) physical neglect by both plaintiffs; (2) emotional neglect by both plaintiffs; (3) emotional abuse of A. by Duane; and (4) placement of the plaintiffs on the registry. In so arguing, they rely primarily on the testimony they offered at the administrative hearing to explain away the contradictory evidence presented by the department. While their conflicting testimony must be considered, the court cannot reweigh the evidence or make credibility decisions. The department argues, and the court concludes, that there was substantial evidence in the record to support each of the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each of the plaintiffs.
I
PHYSICAL NEGLECT
General Statutes § 17a-101g(b) governs the investigation of reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. It incorporates the definitions of abuse and neglect found in General Statutes § 46b-120. Section 46b-120(6) provides that a child may be found to be " neglected" who " (A) has been abandoned, (B) is being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, or (C) is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to the well-being of the child or youth."
The department's policy manual contains further explanation of the department's operational definitions of " physical neglect." It explains " conditions injurious" to a child's well-being to include both " abandonment" and " voluntarily and knowingly entrusting the care of a child to individuals who may be disqualified to provide safe care." Policy Manual § 342-7. Our Supreme Court has concluded that courts may rely on the policy manual insofar as it is consistent with the statutes and regulations and fills gaps not otherwise addressed by statutes or regulations. See Hogan v. Dept. of Children and Families, supra, 290 Conn. at 576 and n.16; see also Frank v. Dept. of Children and Families, supra, 312 Conn. at 420-21.
Referring to the policy manual's section on physical neglect, the hearing officer upheld the substantiation of physical neglect principally because the plaintiffs left the children in Donna's care and left the state, refusing to accept calls from the department or the police, and never contacted the department in an attempt to address the allegations. The plaintiffs contend that they never had notice of the 2007 court proceedings initiated by the department through which the children were adjudicated neglected, and that they therefore cannot be faulted for abandoning the children. They also argue that the hearing officer improperly considered their failure to contact the department in August 2007 because the probate judge had said that any issues with the children should be addressed by the Middletown office of the department rather than the Meriden office, as a result of A.'s allegations against a Meriden investigator in 2003, and the plaintiffs believed that the Meriden office was working with the police to have Duane arrested. They argue that the conclusion that Donna was not anappropriate caregiver is refuted by the fact that the department left the children with her and her adult daughter, Jackie, for one or two nights before placing the children in safe homes.
The social worker who investigated the 2007 allegations and testified at the hearing was not the same investigator who had been accused by Roberta of abusing A. in 2003.
The hearing officer rejected the plaintiffs' testimony that they were unaware of the court proceedings. She acknowledged that it was possible that they did not know of them at the beginning of the process but did not credit their claim that they never became aware of it. She observed that they had contact with Donna, who had begged them to come back and sort things out. She rejected Duane's testimony that he and Roberta intended to return to Connecticut in time to enroll the children in school because they had previously removed the children from school and notified the school that they intended to home school the children. The hearing officer observed that the plaintiffs also knew that they were being investigated by the police department.
As to Donna's suitability, the hearing officer found that Donna had a long history of substance abuse and criminal behavior and had lost custody of the children as a result. Moreover, the plaintiffs knew that Donna did not have a full-time job, an apartment, or the means to care for the children on a long-term basis. The hearing officer also found that the record shows that Donna, the police, and the department all tried to contact the plaintiffs to get them to return to Connecticut. The plaintiffs ignored these requests and the children were left in Connecticut without any legal guardian to make decisions or ensure medical treatment in an emergency. The hearing officer concluded that the plaintiffs' abandonment of the children demonstrated a serious disregard for their physical well-being.
The record amply supports the hearing officer's decision, despite the plaintiffs' testimony to the contrary. As to the plaintiffs' claims that they had no notice of the department's proceedings, the record establishes that the investigative social worker made several attempts to contact both plaintiffs by cell phone, left voice mail messages on Roberta's cell phone (Duane's did not accept messages), left a copy of the notice of the 96-hour hold at their front door and mailed another copy to them by certified mail, and called both plaintiffs to inform them of the hearing on the order of temporary custody. Moreover, on August 27, 2007, Donna reported to the social worker that she had actually spoken with Roberta over the previous weekend about the order of temporary custody, the hearing for which was scheduled for August 30, 2007. She said that Roberta was hysterical and thought that everyone was out to get her husband. Roberta also told Donna that she and Duane had no intention of returning to Connecticut. At the hearing on the order of temporary custody, abode service was confirmed as to Roberta and Duane and they were defaulted for failure to appear. Substantial evidence in the record supports the hearing officer's conclusion that the plaintiffs were aware of the legal proceedings before the hearing on temporary custody and chose not to return to Connecticut to attend court or to work with the department to resolve the issues.
The record also contains evidence that Donna was not a suitable person to care for the children. Although Donna cared about her children and maintained a visiting relationship with them, she recognized that she was unable to care for them on a long-term basis in August 2007 because she had been out of prison only four months, had only a part-time job, and did not have her own apartment but was renting a room in another person's home. In addition, she had a long history of substance abuse and mental health issues and was not in treatment for those issues at the time.
Moreover, at the hearing before the hearing officer, Duane testified that Donna was a habitual liar and a drug addict. Although he also testified that she was an appropriate person to care for the children because she had previously raised children, his testimony on the whole revealed his contempt for Donna and did not support his contention that she was an appropriate caregiver for the children.
The record provides substantial support for the hearing officer's finding with respect to the substantiation for physical neglect. The hearing officer's conclusion of law is supported by the substantial reliable and probative evidence in the record.
II
EMOTIONAL NEGLECT
The department's policy manual provides in relevant part that " emotional neglect" is the " denial of proper care and attention, or failure to respond, to a child's affective needs by the person responsible for the child's health, welfare or care . . . which has an adverse impact on the child." Policy Manual § 34-2-7. As the hearing officer explained, emotional neglect is the failure of the caretaker to provide support, nurture and affection that interferes with a child's positive emotional development.
One basis for the finding of emotional neglect was the fact that the plaintiffs simply disappeared from the children's lives in August 2007, when they became aware of the police and department investigations. Although they had been the children's caregivers for at least four years at that time, and although the children depended on them to provide a home, they simply vanished, as far as the children were concerned, without any explanation to the children. Such abandonment, in and of itself, supports a finding of emotional neglect as well as of physical neglect.
The hearing officer further concluded that, in addition to abandoning the children to the care of an inappropriate person, the plaintiffs had emotionally neglected the children before that abandonment. Both children reported ongoing physical discipline in the plaintiffs' household that caused them to fear the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also threatened the children with the loss of visitation with their mother and half-sister. Both children displayed mental health issues that were untreated.
The evidence in the record amply supports the hearing officer's conclusion that the children were emotionally neglected. The evidence shows that the children were very fearful of being returned to the plaintiffs because of the constant physical discipline. More particularly, the plaintiffs had ordered them not to talk to the department and both children were fearful of being punished because they had met with the department's social worker. Their adult sister told the social worker that she had also witnessed harsh physical discipline by the plaintiffs, particularly of A. but also of L., but she was afraid to challenge the plaintiffs because they had threatened to cut off her visits with the children. Both children had obvious mental health issues. A. engaged in highly sexualized behaviors while L. was hyperactive and aggressive. Despite these behaviors, the plaintiffs had not sought help for the children but had tried instead to isolate them.
The record provides substantial support for the hearing officer's finding with respect to the substantiation for emotional neglect. The hearing officer's conclusion of law is supported by the substantial reliable and probative evidence in the record.
III
DUANE'S EMOTIONAL ABUSE OF A.
The policy manual explains that emotional abuse includes acts, statements or threats that have had an adverse impact on a child or interferes with a child's positive emotional development. Policy Manual § 34-2-7. Examples of evidence of emotional abuse include degrading behavior, isolation, excessive discipline, and exposure to intimidating conduct. As discussed by the Supreme Court in Frank v. Dept. of Children and Families, supra, 312 Conn. at 423-24, the policy manual's definition is consistent with " other authoritative published sources." For instance, the Centers for Disease Control has defined " psychological abuse, " which includes " emotional abuse, " to mean " [i]ntentional caregiver behavior . . . that conveys to a child that he/she is worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted, endangered, or valued only in meeting another's needs." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 423.
The hearing officer found ample evidence to support the agency's substantiation of Duane's emotional abuse of A., who was not yet ten years old in August 2007. He threatened her with loss of visits with her mother and sister; he cut her hair short to keep her from " seducing men"; and, as Jackie reported, he made statements in her presence like " what kind of mother lets her husband fuck her daughter?" When he found her in a closet with her brother, he called her " Chester the Molester" and called her mother to come get her immediately. As the hearing officer found, these attitudes, expressed in A.'s presence, were evidence of Duane's need to control A. through intimidation and degradation. His attitudes were reinforced by persistent physical discipline which produced a high level of fear in A. and adversely affected her emotional health.
Duane admitted, at the hearing, that he had told A. she would be taken away if she pressed allegations of abuse against him. He claimed that he only intended his statements as a warning. The hearing officer rejected his claim.
Duane himself admitted that he yelled at the children. The hearing officer observed that even in the hearing, Duane had difficulty in controlling his temper. She observed: " When he lost that battle, he became very angry, loud and hostile. His face turned deeply red and his veins bulged. He slammed the table with his hand." She concluded that his rage, when combined with the acts and statements described above, supported the department's conclusion that Duane had emotionally abused A.
Substantial evidence in the record supports the hearing officer's conclusion that Duane emotionally abused A. The record was replete with evidence that Duane was volatile, easily angered, and especially harsh with A. He used inappropriately sexualized language in front of her. The plaintiffs claim that his " Chester the Molester" statement was not made in front of A., but only on the telephone to Donna. They do not deny that he made the statement, and they do not address other sexualized statements he made in front of A., such as the statement reported by Jackie, which was degrading to both Donna and A. Viewing the record as a whole, the court concludes that the hearing officer's decision was factually and legally supported.
IV
PLACEMENT ON THE CENTRAL REGISTRY
General Statutes § 17a-101k requires the commissioner of children and families to maintain a registry of individuals who have been substantiated for abuse or neglect and who pose a risk to children. Section 17a-101k works " in tandem" with § 17a-101g, which establishes the department's responsibilities upon receiving a report of abuse or neglect of a child. See Hogan v. Dept. of Children and Families, supra, 290 Conn. 568-70. Section 17a-101g requires the department to classify, evaluate, investigate, and determine whether such reported abuse or neglect has occurred. Id., 569. If the department determines that abuse or neglect has occurred, the department must also determine " whether: (1) Where 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 by the commissioner for placement on the child abuse and neglect registry established pursuant to section 17a-101k." General Statutes § 17a-101g(b).
As required by General Statutes § 17a-101k(i), the department has promulgated regulations to implement the registry. See Regulations, Connecticut State Agencies § § 17a-101k-1 to 17a-101k-16. Section 17a-101k-3(b) provides in relevant part: " (A) person shall be deemed to pose a risk to the health, safety or well-being of children, and listed on the central registry, when: . . . (4) the individual responsible for physical or emotional abuse is a person entrusted with the care of a child within the meaning of section 17a-101k-1(6) of the Regulations . . . or (6) a petition alleging that a child is neglected or uncared for . . . based at least in part on the allegations that form the basis of the substantiation, is pending in Superior Court or on appeal." In addition, " [s]ection 34-2-8 of the department's policy manual requires the department to make a separate finding as to whether a person responsible for child abuse or neglect poses a risk to children, and if so, whether the person's name should be placed on the central registry. In making that determination, the department must consider the responsible person's intent, the severity of the impact on the children, the chronicity of the neglectful conduct, and whether domestic violence was involved." F.M. v. Commissioner of Children & Families, 143 Conn.App. 454, 463-64, 72 A.3d 1095 (2013).
In addressing intent, the hearing officer considered whether there was reason to believe that the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge and resources, the ability to utilize them and an understanding of the implications of failing to provide appropriate care, but made a conscious decision not to do so. She concluded that both plaintiffs abandoned both children. Both plaintiffs were aware of Donna's history, but left the children with her, knowing that she lacked stable housing, employment, or means to provide for the children. The plaintiffs left the children without any legally responsible adult who could take care of them in a medical emergency. The children had lived with them and depended on them for all their needs for at least four years. They nevertheless left the children in August of 2007 without any notice or explanation, and they knowingly and intentionally disappeared from the children's lives.
In considering the severity of the plaintiffs' actions, the hearing officer considered whether there was a serious adverse impact on the children or a serious disregard for their welfare. She concluded that the plaintiffs demonstrated a serious disregard for the children's emotional and physical well-being when they abandoned them, and their conduct adversely affected the children, causing them first to be placed in separate safe homes and ultimately to be adjudicated neglected. The plaintiffs had made the children believe that they would be in trouble if they discussed the family's situation with outsiders and had threatened to cut the children off from their mother and sister. These threats were reinforced with constant physical discipline and Duane's controlling and hostile demeanor.
In assessing chronicity, the hearing officer considered whether there was a pattern or chronic nature to the neglect. She concluded that the events leading up to the substantiation were not isolated. The plaintiffs engaged in ongoing physical discipline and threatening remarks from 2003 through 2007. They refused to work with outside providers and routinely avoided intervention. They failed to seek counseling for A. even though they believed she had been sexually abused. They refused to seek Birth to Three services for L. when he was young and his speech seemed to be delayed. Nor did they seek help to deal with his aggressive and excessively active behavior, despite the school's concerns that he should be evaluated for special education services. Finally, they failed even to appear to defend themselves when the children were removed under the order of temporary custody in 2007.
The hearing officer recognized that the presence of domestic violence and substance abuse in the home was disputed. Without resolving that factual dispute, she found that Duane's behavior was extremely intimidating and aggressive, and that Roberta recognized it as such but did nothing to prevent it or to protect the children. As a result, she concluded that both plaintiffs pose a risk to children and that their names were properly placed on the registry of persons responsible for child abuse and neglect. The plaintiffs complain that the hearing officer improperly " lumped the two [plaintiffs] together, " and that she improperly based her conclusion that the plaintiffs abandoned their children on the default judgment rendered in the child protection proceedings in juvenile court. They claim that they were " available" by phone to Donna when they left the children with her. These claims are meritless. The court has reviewed the entire record and finds that the hearing officer's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are reasonably and logically drawn from that evidence. Contrary to their protestations at the administrative hearing, there was substantial evidence that both plaintiffs were aware of the department's investigation and court proceedings as well as of the criminal investigation of Duane. Both plaintiffs were so distrustful of authority that they preferred to leave the state and stay away rather than meet with the department and address its concerns about the children. It was not improper to " lump" the plaintiffs together. While the evidence suggests that Roberta may not have been as harsh with the children as Duane was, it was clear that Roberta's first loyalty was to Duane and that she would do nothing to protect the children from his controlling and intimidating behavior.
The hearing officer's decision to uphold the placement of the plaintiffs on the central registry is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
BY THE COURT,
In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 17a-28(a), the identities of the family members involved in this administrative appeal are not disclosed. The sealed portion of the record in this case shall be open to inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon order of the court.