FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by

Final Decision

Tammy Canna,

 

Complainant

 

against

Docket #FIC 1995-342

Day Care Licensing Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health,

 

Respondent

August 14, 1996

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 11, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Following the hearing on this matter, the respondent submitted to the Commission the records at issue, and an in camera inspection was conducted. The in camera records have been designated items #1 through #11 for reference.

 

            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.         It is found that during August 1995, the complainant filed a written complaint (hereinafter “the complaint”) with the respondent alleging child abuse against the director of the Julia Day Nursery & Kindergarten (hereinafter “nursery”), her employer.

 

3.         It is found that the respondent initiated an investigation whereby it requested the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) investigate the complainant’s allegations.

 

4.         It is found that as a result of the investigation, described in paragraph 3, above, DCF issued a report to the respondent detailing the investigation and findings.

 

5.         It is found that by letter dated October 20, 1995, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with access to a copy of all records pertaining to the nursery and its staff, including licensing, complaints, investigations of such complaints, and referrals, actions and determinations made with respect to such complaints (“requested records”).

 

            6.         Having failed to receive access to the requested records, the complainant by letter of complaint dated November 22, 1995 and filed with the Commission on November 24, 1995, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her access to the requested records.

 

7.         It is found that by letters dated December 5 and 13, 1995 the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s records request and offered to provide her with access to some of the requested records, however, it denied her access to certain records claiming exemptions to disclosure pursuant to §§1-19(b)(10) and 17a-101(g), G.S.  The respondent also claims that §19a-87a(d), G.S., provides an exemption for the names of persons who file complaints alleging child abuse.

 

8.         It is found that on January 19, 1996, the respondent provided the complainant with access to some of the requested records, and withheld disclosure of records of complaints, investigation and findings (hereinafter “records at issue” or “in camera records”).  It is found that the records at issue are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.

 

9.         Section 1-19(b)(10), G.S., provides an exemption for records, reports and statements exempt under federal law or state statutes.

 

10.       Section 19a-87a(d), G.S., provides that the name of the person making the report or complaint shall not be disclosed unless (1) such person consents to such disclosure, (2) a judicial or administrative proceeding results therefrom or (3) the revocation or suspension of a provider’s license results therefrom.

 

11. Section 17a-101(g), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

The information contained in the[Department of Children and Families] reports and any other information relative to child abuse, wherever located, shall be confidential subject to such regulations governing their use and access as shall conform to the requirements of federal law or regulations.

 

 

12.       It is found that the in camera records are records concerning the licensing of the nursery, some of which contain information relative to child abuse.

 

13.       It is found that in camera item #1 is the DCF investigation report and findings, described in paragraph 4, above, which contains information concerning child abuse or neglect.

 

14.       It is concluded that in camera item #1 is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §17a-101, G.S.

 

15        It is found that in camera item #2 is the respondent’s request to DCF to conduct the investigation.

 

16.       It is concluded that in camera item #2 contains nothing that would violate the confidentiality requirement of §17a-101, G.S., and is therefore not exempt from disclosure

 

17.       It is found that in camera item #3 consist of the investigator’s notes, statements of persons interviewed and an intake complaint form.

 

18.       It is found that the interview notes (page 2 only of in camera item #3) contain information concerning child abuse or neglect.

 

19.       It is concluded that page 2 of in camera item #3 is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §17a-101, G.S.

 

20.       It is found that in camera item #4 is a request from the respondent to DCF to conduct the investigation.

 

21.       It is concluded that in camera item #4 contains nothing that would violate the confidentiality requirement of §17a-101, G.S., and is therefore not exempt from disclosure.

 

22.       It is found that in camera item #5 is a note from the nursery’s director.

 

23.       It is concluded that in camera item #5 contains nothing that would violate the confidentiality requirement of §17a-101, G.S., and is therefore not exempt from disclosure.

 

24        It is found that in camera item #6 is the nursery director’s response to the allegations of child abuse.

 

25.       It is concluded that pages 2 and 4 of in camera item #6 contain information concerning child abuse or neglect and are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §17a-101, G.S.

 

26.       It is found that in camera item #7 is a record of the complaint allegations.

 

27.       It is concluded that in camera item #7 contains nothing that would violate the confidentiality requirement of §17a-101, G.S., and is therefore not exempt from disclosure.

 

28.       It is found that in camera item #8 is a memorandum from the respondent to DCF.

 

29.       It is found that in camera item #8 contains nothing that would violate the confidentiality requirement of §17a-101, G.S., and is therefore not exempt from disclosure.

 

30.       It is found that in camera item #9 is a letter from the complainant to DCF, which contains nothing that would violate the confidentiality requirement of §17a-101, G.S., and is therefore not exempt from disclosure.

 

31.       It is found that in camera item #10 are notes which contain nothing that would violate the confidentiality requirement of §17a-101, G.S., and are therefore not exempt from disclosure.

 

32.       It is found that in camera item #11 are letters from the complainant to the respondent and DCF regarding her allegations.

 

33.       It is found that pages 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 of in camera item #11 contain nothing that would violate the confidentiality requirement of §17a-101, G.S., and are therefore not exempt from disclosure

 

34.       It is found that pages 3, 4 and 5 of in camera item #11 contain information relative to child abuse and also identify children.

 

35.       It is concluded that pages 3, 4 and 5 of in camera item #11 are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §17a-101(g), G.S.

 

36        It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to disclose to the complainant in camera item #1, page 2 item #3, pages 2 and 4 item #6 and pages 3, 4 and 5 item #11.  However, the respondent violated §1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to disclose the remaining in camera records, as identified in paragraph 1 of the order, below.

 

37.       It is further concluded that nothing in §19a-87a(d). G.S., precludes disclosure of any of the in camera records.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.         The respondent shall within seven days of the receipt of the final decision in this matter provide the complainant with a copy of in camera record item #2, #3 (except page 2), #4, #5, #6 (except pages 2 and 4), #7, #8, #9, #10 and #11 (except pages 3, 4 and 5).

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 14, 1996.

 

 

 

                                                               

                                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

 

Tammy Canna

c/o  Donna Decker Morris, Esq.

Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, P.C.

55 Whitney Avenue

New Haven, CT 06510-1300

 

Day Care Licensing Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health

c/o  Judith A. Merrill, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1995-342,FD