FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
George and Cynthia Korhonen,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 95-121
State of Connecticut,
Department of Children and Families,
Respondent March 27, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 26, 1995, at which time the complainants appeared and presented
exhibits and argument on the complaint, but the respondent failed to appear.
On November 21, 1995, the undersigned hearing officer
submitted a report which was to be considered by the Commission at its December
13, 1995 meeting, but instead was withdrawn at that meeting.
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
dated March 9, 1995 and received by the respondent on March 13, 1995, the
complainants requested that the respondent provide them with a copy of its
entire investigation file concerning case #N7182-000, including, but not
limited to, the original complaint, witness interviews and witness statements.
3. By letter
dated April 11, 1995, and filed on April 13, 1995, the complainants appealed to
the Commission and alleged that the respondent failed to comply with their
request.
4. It is
found that the respondent investigated an allegation of child abuse made
against the complainants and that the respondent maintains a file of such
investigation, known as case #N7182-000 (hereinafter "investigation
file").
5. It is
found that the investigation file is a public record within the meaning of
1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
#FIC 95-121 Page
2
6. It is
found that under cover letter dated May 5, 1995, the respondent provided the
complainants with the following documents from its investigation file: 1) An eight page data collection/reporting
form, partially redacted; 2) a four page risk assessment evaluation; and 3)
forms signed by each of the complainants authorizing the release of such
information to their attorneys.
7. The
complainants contend that the records provided, as described in paragraph 6,
above, do not constitute the respondent's entire investigation file, and they
are still seeking: the identity of the
individual(s) who lodged the complaint against them with the respondent; the
original complaint; any witness statements or interviews; and unredacted copies
of the records which have already been provided.
8. The
respondent maintains that the requested records are exempt from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to 17a-28(b), G.S., and that
the access provided to the complainants was pursuant to 17a-28(j), G.S.
9. Section
17a-28(b), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of 1-19, 1-19a
or 1-19b, records maintained by the department [of children and families] shall
be confidential and shall not be disclosed."
10. It is
concluded that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to
17a-28(b), G.S.
11. Section
17a-28(j), G.S., provides in relevant part:
"In addition to the right of access provided in
1-19, any person, regardless of his age, his authorized representative or
attorney shall have the right of access to any records made, maintained or kept
on file by the department ... when those records pertain to or contain
information or materials concerning the person seeking access thereto.
..." [Emphasis added.]
12. In the
Commission's contested cases dockets #FIC 93-243, Paul B. Kraus v. State of
Connecticut, Department of Children and Families, and #FIC 90-289, Raymond H.
and Elaine M.J. Grandmaison v. Department of Children and Youth Services, the
Commission concluded, with respect to 17a-28(j), G.S., that it was without
jurisdiction to enforce rights of access created by statutes other than the FOI
Act.
#FIC 95-121 Page
3
13. It is
therefore concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to order disclosure
of those records identified in paragraph 7, above, pursuant to 17a-28(j),
G.S.
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.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-121 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:
George and Cynthia Korhonen
c/o Jeffrey L. Ment, Esq.
Rome, McGuigan, Hoberman,
Sabanosh & Kebanoff, P.C.
One State Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3101
State of Connecticut,
Department of Children and Families
c/o Kristine D. Ragaglia,
Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission