FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Raymond H. and Elaine M. J. Grandmaison,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC 90-289
State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Youth Services, Region III,
Respondent(s) March 13, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 19, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated August 2, 1990, and filed with the Commission on August 6, 1990, the complainants appealed to this Commission.
3. The complainants alleged that the respondent failed to adequately respond to their July 19, 1990 request for information regarding the results of an investigation into an incident at Daisy Ingraham School involving their daughter (hereinafter "investigation").
4. It is found that by letter to the respondent dated July 19, 1990, the complainants requested the "results" of the respondent's investigation.
5. It is found that the complainants specifically sought access to the contents of any files that the respondent maintains which pertain to their daughter.
Docket #FIC 90-289 Page 2
6. The respondent maintains that the information contained in any files which are in its possession are confidential and protected against public disclosure under 17-38a(g), G.S., which is a statutory exception to the open records provisions of 1-15 and 1-19, G.S.
7. It is found that 17-38a et seq., G.S., sets forth the public policy of this state to protect children from abuse and establishes requirements regarding the filing and maintenance of reports of child abuse.
8. It is found that 17-38a(g), G.S., provides in relevant part that information "contained in reports and any other information relative to child abuse, wherever located, shall be confidential subject to such regulations governing their use and access [promulgated by the commissioner of children and youth services] . . . ."
9. It is found that the records requested by the complainants constitute "information relative to child abuse" within the scope of the confidentiality requirements of 17-38a(g), G.S.
10. It is found that 17-38a(g), G.S., is a statutory exception to the open records provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
11. It is found that although the requested information is maintained as a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S., the requested information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(a) and 17-38a(g), G.S.
12. It is found that 17-431, G.S., creates a special right of access to confidential information more specifically identified in paragraph 8 of the findings, above.
13. It is found that 17-431, G.S., permits a parent, guardian or other person responsible for the welfare of a child named in a report or record of child abuse to have access to that information by making the appropriate application to the respondent.
Docket #FIC 90-289 Page 3
14. It is concluded that this Commission is without jurisdiction to enforce the rights of access created by 17-431 G.S.
15. The respondents maintain that the complainant made no specific request for particular documentation concerning the investigation.
16. It is found that the respondent did not construe the complainants' request for "results" as a request to inspect the contents of any files pertaining to their daughter.
17. It is also found that in this instance, the respondent was best situated to aid the complainants in clarifying their request as being one for access to recorded data that is maintained by the respondent.
18. It is therefore concluded that although the respondent did not violate the letter of 1-15 and 1-19, G.S., it most certainly did not act in the best tradition of public service, or in the spirit of the FOIA by failing to assist and focus the efforts of the complainants in their quest for information regarding their daughter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. The Commission does not intend the findings and orders herein to prevent the respondent from giving the complainants access to all information to which they are entitled as agreed to by the parties at the hearing on this matter.
3. The Commission also recommends that in the future the respondent carefully consider any requests for information or documentation. Toward that end, the Commission suggests that the respondent make every reasonable effort to either assist the requester in clarifying his request, or in channeling his request to the individual best able to clarify or comply with the request.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 13, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-289 Page 4
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
RAYMOND H. AND ELAINE M. J. GRANDMAISON
P.O. Box 4843
Waterbury, CT 06704
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, REGION III
c/o Arthur E. Webster
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission