Joette Katz, the new supervisor of the DCF is currently on trial for the 5 month old boy that died in the care of DCF. Child advocates are waiting to see if the new commissioner of Children and Families has the resolve to avoid the mistakes of some predecessors, who hastily removed children from their homes.

“What has happened in the past is this tendency that whenever there’s a problem the decision is to just automatically remove a child from their home,” said Jeanne Milstein, the state’s child advocate. “It’s sometimes been an overreaction by the agency.”

The agency has been under federal court supervision for two decades, following a class-action lawsuit filed by child advocates alleging that the state took children from their families too often, among other complaints. On any given day there are about 4,300 children in state custody and thousands more living at home being supervised by DCF.

Martha Stone, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said after Katz took office four months ago it was inevitable that a child would die during her tenure, as is the case with the leader of every child-protection agency. The challenge, Stone said, would be to stay focused on broader reforms.

“There will always be crisis. There will always be a death, unfortunately,” Stone said. “You have to keep your eyes on the prize.”  Funny, the prize for me would be to stop killing our future and ripping families apart, I am not sure what the surprise for her is.

In an interview Wednesday, Katz said the death will not deter her from implementing a sweeping package of changes for the agency, nor will it result in any immediate policy changes.

“I think in the past that’s been exactly the mistake, frankly,” Katz said. “A child dies and the next thing you know workers are getting thrown under the bus and 500 children get removed [from their homes] the next day because it’s a reaction to a tragedy. I think that’s the exact wrong way to behave.”

I am in utter shock how easily they worded that I mean geeze people all that happens are children dying and people losing their families and you are getting all in a tizzy about it.  Grow up, shit happens, baby dies, we need to keep our course they say!

Stone said a similar incident faced former DCF Commissioner Linda Rossi on her first few months on the job with the death of Baby Emily.  (Well that is words of wisdom Stone, my mom used to say all the time, if other people are jumping off a bridge in front of a train it is OK for you to as well, I mean why the hell not.  If other people can kill babies and get away with it, why can’t you, what a fair question.

“You cannot let tragedies derail you,” she said. “I don’t want to be glib and say there are going to be other [deaths]. You hope there is never a death of a child. But it’s like saying to a police officer you’re never going to have a homicide, or to a firefighter, you’re never going to have a fire. That’s not just reality, which is why it’s that much more important to have good policies in place.”

However this case does play out, one reality will always remain, said Sarah Eagan, a lawyer for the Center for Children’s advocacy.

“You can’t predict outcomes all the time. That’s the tragic reality,” she said. “In the end, you have to take your best evidence and be allowed to make your best decision in each case.”

 

Some last words of wisdom, if there are fire fighters there will be fires, if there are police there will be homicides, and if there is the DCF there will be baby deaths.  I wonder if these people actually believe or even think about what they are saying before they say it.  Well looks like another couple of years of surprises fires and baby deaths, yippee for all of us and to all,… no, this is wrong, I cant even joke about it.  You people are pathetic, and I wish you would hire a personal swimming guard so that as you say, you will drowned in your big private pools.

 

Source: http://www.ctmirror.org/story/12962/dcf

Incoming search terms:

• baby growing up in dcf

MEMORANDUM

To:	All Staff
From:	Darlene Dunbar, MSW
Date:	Thursday, March 04, 2004
Subject:	Rights of Children in Placement
I would like to share with you two new guidelines developed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) regarding the following rights of children who are residing in DCF operated facilities and DCF licensed facilities: the use of the telephone by children and the use of physical force to prevent children from leaving a facility. Use of the Telephone: DCF staff and the residential providers have traditionally limited phone calls by children in placement to only those persons on an approved list. This list is sometimes supplied by the placing social worker or parole officer; in other cases it is compiled by the residential provider. While this appears to be a therapeutically sound practice, an approved call list is a restriction on a child’s rights to use the phone that is not permitted by Connecticut statutes and regulation. Attached are guidelines that will clarify the requirements in this area. These guidelines are to be followed in all DCF licensed or operated facilities. Use of Physical Force to Prevent Children from Leaving a facility without permission: The use of physical force to prevent a child from leaving a facility or supervised location is permitted by statute under the very limited circumstances of preventing imminent or immediate injury to a child in placement or others. Therefore, there cannot be a general practice of restraining a child for attempting to leave a facility or supervised location if there is no risk of imminent or immediate injury to the child or others. The attached guidelines require that the intended use of such force be part of the child’s treatment plan and be a result of an assessment of the risk that the child would pose to him/her self or others if he/she were to run from the facility. This memo and the attached guidelines are not intended to grant permission to use force to prevent all children in placement from running away, but are limited to those cases where an actual risk of injury is present. DD/td I. RESIDENT USE OF THE TELEPHONE. Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 17a-16-8. Use of the telephone (a) Public telephones shall be made available in appropriate locations in each institution or facility under the jurisdiction of the commissioner. (b) A child or youth shall be permitted to make and receive telephone calls at reasonable times exclusive of regularly scheduled program activities. An incoming telephone call from the child’s or youth’s attorney or clergyman shall be transmitted immediately to the child or youth or, if that is not practicable, a message shall be given to the child or youth as to the caller’s identity and his telephone number. (c) The head of the institution or facility, or his designee, may restrict the use of the telephone by a child or youth when he determines that communication by the child or youth with a particular individual, group or agency is inconsistent with the child’s or youth’s treatment objectives. If use of the telephone is restricted, this shall be explained to the child or youth and the individual, group or agency that is subject to the restriction. Such restriction shall be noted in writing, signed by the head of the institution or facility, and made a part of the child’s or youth’s permanent clinical record. GUIDELINES (1) A public telephone or house or unit phone that has an outside phone line is acceptable. (2) Access to the telephone may not be looked upon as a privilege that a resident can earn, but rather as a right that a resident is entitled to within reasonable boundaries. Programs may make reasonable rules around use of the telephone in order to achieve equitable access for all residents.  Such rules would cover the length of the phone call and the number of calls a resident may make per day.  Programs may also designate certain times of the day as those when phone calls may be made.  A sign-up list, assigned calling times, or other system of ensuring equitable access may also be incorporated.  Phone calls should not interfere with programmed activities, however the program day needs to take into account the ability for youth to make phone calls.  Programs should take into account the individualized needs of each youth and their family (i.e. family work schedules, etc.). (3) A “restricted” list may be developed by the program of those individuals, groups or agencies that the resident may not have contact with because such contact would be detrimental to the treatment of the resident.  The decision rests with the program; however, input into this decision should certainly be sought from the parents, DCF social workers and parole officers, probation officers, etc.  Programs may not develop an “approved” list that limits a resident’s phone calls to only those persons on the list. While past practice by DCF personnel has been to provide facilities with an approved list, this regulation places the responsibility on the facility to determine who the child is restricted from calling.  The restricted list must be supported by clinical rationale and approved by the head of the facility or their designee. (4) Programs may take reasonable steps to ensure that residents are not abusing their phone privileges such as making prank, obscene, or threatening phone calls, or calling persons that are on the “restricted” list.  Such reasonable steps must be individualized, and based upon a documented need.  Such reasonable steps would include documenting who the resident is calling, dialing the phone for the resident, sitting within listening distance of the phone, and listening in on the conversation.  If the program decides that listening in on a phone conversation is necessary, both the resident making the phone call and the recipient of the phone call should be informed that the call is being monitored.  Any such steps must be documented in the case record and reviewed weekly by the unit supervisor and monthly by the program director.  Due to confidentiality concerns it may not be possible to contact persons who are restricted from contact with the resident.  Informing those persons about the restriction may occur if the person attempts to contact the resident. (5) Programs may suspend a resident’s right to use the telephone for short periods of time in exceptional circumstances such as a reasonable expectation that using the phone, or having used the phone, will or has put himself or herself or someone else at risk.  This short-term suspension should not be seen as taking the place of the aforementioned restricted list.  A suspension of this nature should not be in place for longer than a twenty-four hour period.  The rationale for such suspension must be documented and approved by the head of the facility or their designee and included in the child’s case record.  The child’s parent/guardian and his/her DCF Social Worker and/or Parole Officer, must be informed of any such suspension upon the enactment of the suspension or as soon as practical, but not more than seventy two (72) hours after the suspension.  Each suspension must be reviewed and approved every twenty-four hour period by the head of the facility or their designee.  Any series of twenty-four hour suspensions that extends beyond a period of seven days must be reviewed and approved by the child’s treatment team. The suspension, if continued, must be reviewed daily by the head of the facility and reviewed weekly by the treatment team.  Such an overall suspension on the use of the telephone does not apply to contact with the child’s DCF Social Worker, DCF Parole Officer, attorney, or clergy member. II. USE OF RESTRAINT TO PREVENT A RESIDENT FROM LEAVING A FACILITY WITHOUT PERMISSION Connecticut General Statutes § 46a-152. Physical restraint, seclusion and use of psychopharmacologic agents restricted. Monitoring and documentation required. (a) No provider or assistant may use involuntary physical restraint on a person at risk except (1) as an emergency intervention to prevent immediate or imminent injury to the person at risk or to others, provided the restraint is not used for discipline or convenience and is not used as a substitute for a less restrictive alternative, (2) as necessary and appropriate, as determined on an individual basis by the person’s treatment team and consistent with sections 17a-540 to 17a-550, inclusive, for the transportation of a person under the jurisdiction of the Whiting Forensic Division of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. GUIDELINES (1) This statute expressly limits the use of involuntary physical restraint of a resident to emergency situations to prevent immediate or imminent injury to the resident or others.  The statute does not prohibit program staff from intervening in the event of an attempted AWOL by a resident.  Program staff may take reasonable steps to prevent an AWOL such as using verbal de-escalation, preventing a resident from leaving the facility, pursuing the youth, maintaining ongoing observation of the youth, and attempting to escort the youth back to the program.  Engaging in a full physical restraint of a youth simply because he or she is attempting to leave the facility without permission is prohibited. (2) Physical restraint may be used to prevent a person from leaving a facility without permission only to prevent immediate or imminent injury to the person at risk or to others.  This use of restraint must be determined to be necessary and appropriate and must be approved in advance by the child’s treatment team and documented in the child’s treatment plan.   This determination must be made on an individualized basis.  It cannot be a standing rule of the facility.  In order to make such a determination, the person’s treatment team shall consider the following factors and document them in the treatment plan: the person’s age; the person’s physical and mental health; the nature and extent of the person’s current risk of harm to self or others, including, but not limited to history of violent, dangerous, at risk or self injurious behavior; if the person has engaged in criminal behavior, how such criminal behavior represents a risk to self or others; the reason for the person’s presence in the facility; and the less restrictive alternatives to physical restraint that will be used before the use of physical restraint. These factors and the determination to use restraint to prevent a runaway must be reviewed by the treatment team and the person’s guardian at least monthly.  The review must be documented in the treatment plan. Click here for a printable version of this memo

Incoming search terms:

• rights of child in dcf ct
• attorneys near bpt ct who deal with dcf neglect cases

Connecticut CPS News Archive – Kidjacked.

CONNECTICUT FAMILY COURT

AND THE TWO FAMILY APPLICATION PROCESS

“STEALING FREEDOM!”

ARE YOU A VICTIM OF THE CONNECTICUT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM?

• HAS THE STATE OF CT ACCUSED YOU OF BEING A “DEAD BEAT” PARENT?

Unsure…if the summons filed in court against you states that you “refused and

neglected to care for your child…” and you can show proof that you have

been active in your child(ren)’s life without the summons, we want to hear from you!

 

• DOES YOUR CASE INVOLVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE?

Do you have a case in the Superior Court and an action has also been

brought against you by the attorney general’s office in the Child

Support Enforcement Court?  If so, we want to hear from you!

• …THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES?

Has the Department of Social Services claimed you owe them money back

for your child? If so, we want to hear from you!

• …THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)?

Has DCF taken your child(ren) from you? Abused your trust? Refused to listen

to you? If so, we want to hear from you!

It’s time for citizens/residents of Connecticut to stand up against the Connecticut Family Court Injustice.  Attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office are running into Court assisting corrupt state employees in destroying good families.  We all know that there are families who need the intervention, but when government officials file fraudulent cases against innocent people and fail to correct the wrong, they jeopardize the “liberty” of that individual.  Slavery ended centuries ago.  Our state has found a subtle way to keep the system of slavery going. Innocent people are facing “jail time” for false allegations that are brought against them by corrupt government officials.  Judges are aiding in the process by unlawfully and at times illegally granting their “friends of the court” their cases.  It’s time to change this process.   We need to unite together and ask our United States Department of Justice to help ensure that we keep our right to be “free” from “cruel and unusual” punishment.

IT’S TIME FOR CHANGE IN CONNECTICUT!!!

 

monicafore@aol.com – Community Advocacy only – Not intended for legal advice or representation

Incoming search terms:

• Elmcrest Psychiatric Institute CLOSING OF
• defamation of character dyfs false allegations penalties fines
• dyfs corruption agent guilty
• how do I write a counter letter of the false allegations my sister reported to DCF?
• manchester connecticut arrest august 2008 risk of injury to minor
• norton\s restorations 860-402-4791
• scoff acronym DMV term

Mission and Guiding Principles

The mission of the Department of Children and Families is to protect children, improve child and family well-being and support and preserve families. These efforts are accomplished by respecting and working within individual cultures and communities in Connecticut, and in partnership with others.

Guiding Principles

• Overarching Principle – Safety/Permanency/Well-Being: The Department of Children and Families (DCF) is committed to the support and care of all children, including those in need of protection, who require mental health or substance abuse services, and who come to the attention of the juvenile services system.In this context, DCF asserts that all children have a basic right to grow up in safe and nurturing environments and to live free from abuse and neglect. All children are entitled to enduring relationships that create a sense of family, stability and belonging.
• Principle One – Families as Allies: The integrity of families and each individual family member is respected, and the importance of the attachments between family members is accepted as critical. All families have strengths and the goal is to build on these strengths. Family involvement and self-determination in the planning and service delivery process is essential.
• Principle Two – Cultural Competence: The diversity of all people is recognized and appreciated and children and families are to be understood in the context of their own family rules, traditions, history and culture.
• Principle Three – Partnerships: Children and families are best served when they are part of and supported by their community. The Department is part of this community, works in association with community members, and is committed to its services being localized, accessible and individualized to meet the variety of children and families needs.
• Principle Four – Organizational Commitment: A successful organizational structure promotes effective communication, establishes clear directions, defines roles and responsibilities, values the input and professionalism of staff, creates a supportive, respectful and positive environment, and endorses continuous quality improvement and best practice.
• Principle Five – Work Force Development: The work force is highly qualified, well trained and competent, and is provided with the skills necessary to engage, assess, and intervene to assist children and families achieve safety, permanence and well-being.

This information was obtained from the Department of Children and Families for Ct

 

Content Last Modified on 8/2/2006 8:01:54 AM Last modified On 8-2-2006????????? a little behind, I’d say.

I would also say that the Mission of the Department of Children and Families in Ct, looks good, but they do not seem to follow it, along with most of the rules they have.

PA 11-167—sSB 1043

Select Committee on Children

Judiciary Committee

Human Services Committee

AN ACT CONCERNING ACCESS TO RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

SUMMARY: By law, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) may not disclose its records to anyone unless (1) state law or federal regulations require or allow the disclosure or (2) the subject of the record or his or her authorized representative consents to the disclosure. This act generally expands the list of individuals and entities to whom DCF must, or may, disclose its otherwise confidential records, while broadening the circumstances in which the department can deny access. Also, in a number of instances, it limits or changes the use the recipient may make of materials contained in a record. By law, unauthorized disclosures are subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

Under the act, a child is a person 15 years old or younger; a youth is a 16- or 17-year-old.

The act also makes conforming, minor, and technical changes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2011

DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS

By law, many of the records DCF maintains are confidential and may not be disclosed. A “record” is information DCF created or obtained as a result of its child protection activities or other activities related to a child who is or was in its care or custody. Records include information in DCF’s child abuse registry and information the department obtained from other sources while a child was receiving services from the department. The act eliminates a restriction on DCF’s disclosing records that it did not create, other than those that the law mandates to be disclosed, thus increasing the volume of materials that either must or can be shared. On the other hand the act limits the scope of allowable disclosures of DCF and other records to only those portions that pertain to the requestor or that person’s minor child. This was not the case under prior law.

CONSENT TO RELEASE RECORDS

Under prior law, the only people who could consent to a record’s release were: (1) the person named in the record who (a) is or was committed to DCF; (b) received services from DCF, or (c) is, or was, the subject of a child abuse or neglect investigation; (2) the requestor’s authorized representative or attorney; (3) the authorized representative of a deceased person, including an attorney, who was committed to DCF; or (4) the parent of someone currently or previously committed to DCF, if that person is still a minor.

The act eliminates the ability of people whose parental rights have been terminated to consent to a record’s disclosure or have access to it. It adds a child’s guardian ad litem (GAL – a person representing a child’s best interests) and attorney to the list of authorized representatives, thus giving them express authority to consent to a record’s disclosure. (In practice, an attorney already may authorize release of records on his or her client’s behalf. )

MANDATORY DISCLOSURES

By law, DCF must disclose records to certain parties regardless of whether it has the consent of the person who is the subject of the record or his or her authorized representative. The act changes, in certain cases, the scope of information subject to mandatory disclosure and how this information must be used.

Mandatory Disclosures With Modified Scope

The act modifies how certain parties can use the information in the disclosed record. These include, among others, (1) individuals named in a record, (2) DCF employees, and (3) certain state agencies.

Individuals Named in a Record. Under prior law, any person named in DCF records, or an authorized representative, was entitled to see or copy any record DCF made or kept on file that pertained to or contained information or materials concerning him or her. But the person could not obtain information that would identify the person who reported the alleged child abuse, except in limited situations (see below).

The act limits such mandatory disclosures to those portions of the record that pertain to the individual making the request, rather than access to the entire record. The same is true for parents of a minor child whose rights have not been terminated.

DCF Employees. The act broadens required disclosure to DCF employees by requiring disclosure to any employee for any job-related purpose.

Attorneys General. Under prior law, DCF had to give state attorneys general and assistant attorneys general access to DCF records to provide legal counsel to the department. The act narrows this purpose to representing DCF in a legal proceeding involving the department or a department employee.

Law Enforcement Officers. Prior law required DCF to disclose its records to law enforcement agencies and placed no limits on how these agencies used the information in these records. The act instead requires disclosure to state and federal law enforcement officers; it does not mandate disclosure to municipal officers. The act also limits these disclosures to investigations of allegations of child abuse or neglect.

Prosecutors. Prior law also gave the chief state’s attorney or a designee access to DCF records for the limited purpose of investigating or prosecuting abuse or neglect cases. Under the act, the state’s attorney no longer has automatic access for this purpose. When a record he or she seeks concerns a juvenile who is a defendant in an unrelated matter not involving child abuse, the prosecuting official is only entitled to access (1) after obtaining a release (the act does not specify from whom) and (2) for as long as the abuse or neglect case is being prosecuted.

Department of Developmental Services (DDS). Under prior law, DCF was required to provide DDS with a written summary of any abuse or neglect investigation it conducted of a child involved with DDS for purposes of eligibility determinations or developing a service plan. The act removes this limitation, thus permitting DCF to give DDS access to the child’s complete file.

Department of Public Health (DPH). Prior law gave DPH access to DCF records for use in connection with licensure of any individual to care for children or to determine their suitability for licensure. The act specifies that the licensure involved is limited to day care facilities DPH licenses. But it adds access for investigations conducted jointly by DPH and the Department of Social Services (DSS).

Chief Child Protection Attorney. Among other things, the chief child protection attorney (CCPA) contracts with other attorneys for legal and GAL services involving child abuse and neglect. Under prior law, she had access to DCF records to monitor billing. Under the act, she is entitled to full disclosure of all department records and can use them for any purpose. (PA 11-61 and PA 11-51 eliminate the CCPA position and transfer her functions to the chief public defender).

Mandatory Disclosures that were Previously Prohibited

In some cases, the act requires that DCF disclose records to people and entities to whom access was prohibited in the past. These are: foster and potential adoptive parents, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), and the Human Services Committee.

Foster and Adoptive Parents. Foster and potential adoptive parents were neither entitled nor permitted access to information about a foster or adoptive child under prior law. The act gives them access to records relating to social, medical, psychological, or educational needs of a child currently placed with them or being considered for placement. But information provided cannot identify a biological parent without that parent’s consent.

DMHAS. The act gives DMHAS access to records for making treatment plans for young adults with behavioral health needs who have transitioned from DCF to DMHAS.

Probate Court Judges and Employees. The act requires DCF to release records that a probate judge or employee needs to perform official functions.

Superior Court Judges. Aside from their inherent authority to order that the department release records, Superior Court judges are entitled to access under the act in types of cases where disclosure was not statutorily authorized under prior law. These are:

1. criminal prosecutions, for an in camera (private) inspection when (a) the court has ordered that the record be provided to it or (b) a party to the proceeding has subpoenaed the record;

2. in family violence proceedings, when the records concern family violence with respect to the child who is the subject of the proceeding or the child’s parent (under the act, copies of the record also go to all necessary parties); and

3. when a person charged with child abuse seeks the name of the reporter, and the court must examine the record to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that (a) the reporter knowingly filed a false report or (b) the interest of justice requires it, either of which are reasons for the court to order disclosure. This includes taped child abuse hotline calls and oral reports.

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The act requires disclosure to DMV of information obtained in child abuse investigations, in addition to the already required disclosure of information from the child abuse registry. DMV may use this information for criminal background checks for people applying for license endorsements involving school buses, student transportation, and student activity vehicles.

Human Services Committee. The act adds the Human Services Committee to the legislative committees that must receive records in the course of their official functions. The Judiciary, Program Review, and Children’s committees (and governor) can already obtain them in this situation. Under existing law, the committees cannot disclose individually identifying information unless necessary.

Mandatory Disclosure of Records That Were Previously Permissive

Auditors of Public Accounts. The act requires, rather than allows, disclosure of records to the auditors of public accounts. By law, information identifying the record’s subject can only be disclosed if this is essential to the audit.

PERMITTED DISCLOSURES

Permitting Disclosures Previously Prohibited

The act gives the DCF commissioner the discretion to release information to some entities and people to whom access was not previously permitted. These are (1) foster care and adoption contractors, (2) people searching for relatives, (3) abuse and neglect reporters, (4) anyone interviewed in the course of an abuse or neglect investigation, (5) a court of competent jurisdiction when a DCF employee is subpoenaed to testify about the record, and (6) a Superior Court judge for the purpose of deciding on the disposition of an abuse, neglect, or status offense case.

Adoption Agencies. The act permits adoption agencies under contract with DCF to obtain records, so long as no information identifying the child or youth’s biological parent is disclosed without that parent’s consent.

Missing Relatives. Under the act, DCF can disclose records to relatives looking for a missing parent or youth. Disclosure is limited to information that assists in finding them.

DCF Contract Employees. The act permits DCF to disclose records, without limitation, to individuals it contracts with to perform functions and activities on its behalf, including data analysis, processing, or the administration of utilization reviews; quality assurance; practice management; consultation; data aggregation; and accreditation services. Such access was not permitted under prior law.

Permitted Disclosures Previously Required

The act allows, rather than requires, DCF to disclose records to:

Law Enforcement Officers and Prosecuters. The act makes permissive, rather than mandatory, disclosure of record information when law enforcement officers and prosecutors have reasonable cause to believe that a child or youth is, or is at risk of, being abused or neglected as a result of any suspected criminal activity by any person. It appears that this provision includes federal, state, and municipal law enforcement personnel. The only prosecuting officials covered by this provision are the state’s attorney for the judicial district in which the child resides or the alleged abuse occurred, or his or her designee.

This disclosure provision appears largely to overlap another provision in the act that requires DCF to disclose information to federal and state police officers for the purpose of investigating an allegation of child abuse (see above).

Child Fatalities. The act makes discretionary, rather than mandatory, DCF’s disclosure of information about abuse or neglect cases involving child fatalities or near-fatalities. It eliminates the requirement that a physician certify the child’s condition but extends its reach to 16- and 17-year- olds. It continues to limit such disclosures to general information that does not jeopardize a pending investigation.

Employee Grievances. The act makes record disclosures for employee grievances permissive rather than mandatory but, as under existing law, leaves it to the commissioner to determine which documents are relevant. But access is expanded to cover (1) former, rather than just current employees, and (2) materials needed for court and administrative proceedings. Prior law did not authorize disclosure for administrative or court proceedings.

Records Already Subject to Permissive Disclosure

Some provisions modify the approved uses for permissively disclosed records. Those subject to these disclosures are: (1) child abuse or neglect matters that are likely to become known to the public (2) out-of-state abuse and neglect agencies, (3) physicians determining whether to put a child in an emergency placement (4) child treatment and diagnostic service providers, (5) mental health service providers treating perpetrators or people who will not or cannot protect their children; and (6) bona fide researchers.

Publicly Disclosed Information. Under prior law, the DCF commissioner could disclose information to any individual about an incident of abuse or neglect that the public was likely to find out about. Disclosure was limited to (1) whether the department received an abuse or neglect report and (2) in general terms, any action DCF took, provided the names or identifying information about the minor victim or family members was not disclosed, nor was the name of the suspect unless he or she had been arrested for the crime.

Under the act, she can disclose such information and keep identifying information confidential, even if that information has been disclosed by other sources. She can also (1) confirm or deny the accuracy of the public report and (2) describe, in general terms, the legal status of the case. She cannot disclose information that could jeopardize a pending investigation.

Out-of-State Agencies. Prior law permitted disclosure to any agency in another state that was responsible for investigating or protecting children from abuse and neglect, solely for the purpose of their investigation. The act specifies that the covered entities are out-of-state courts, agencies, and federally recognized tribes that are responsible for investigating abuse or neglect, preventing it, or providing services to at-risk families.

Physicians Authorized to Take Abused and Neglected Children into Custody. By law, DCF can disclose records to physicians who need the information to determine whether to place a victim of suspected abuse or neglect who is under age 16 in an emergency DCF placement. The act appears to extend this provision to cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds.

Child Treatment and Diagnostic Service Providers. By law, DCF can provide records to professionals to whom the department had referred an abuse victim for diagnosis; care or treatment; supervision; or education. The record’s content is limited to that related to the individual’s or agency’s responsibilities.

The act expands this provision to permit DCF to disclose records to any provider of professional services to a child, youth, or family who DCF has referred to the provider.

Perpetrator’s Treatment Provider. The act limits the records medical or mental health agencies or individual providers can obtain in the course of treating an abuser or person not willing or able to protect a child from abuse and neglect. Under the act, they cannot get records unless a DCF investigation indicates that the person seeking treatment was responsible for abuse or neglect. And disclosure is limited to records necessary for the objectives of the diagnosis and treatment.

Bona Fide Researchers. Prior law permitted DCF to disclose information to researchers for approved projects, but the researchers were not given access to information identifying subjects unless (1) it was essential for the research and (2) each person named in a record or his or her authorized representative consented in writing to the disclosure. The act eliminates the need to get consent.

Confidentiality of Identity of Abuse or Neglect Reporter and Cooperating Witness. The act changes restrictions on DCF’s disclosure of the name of a person who reports abuse or neglect by applying to these individuals the confidentiality protections that existing law applies to people who cooperate with abuse and neglect investigations.

Under prior law, DCF could not disclose the name of an abuse reporter without the person’s written consent, except to:

1. a DCF employee responsible for child protective services or the abuse registry;

2. a law enforcement officer, an appropriate state’s attorney, or assistant attorney general;

3. a Superior Court judge and all necessary parties in abuse and neglect proceedings, a criminal prosecution involving abuse or neglect; when a court determined that the reporter had knowingly filed a false report; or when disclosure was required in the interests of justice; or

4. a state child care licensing agency, executive director of any institution, school, or facility, or superintendent of schools.

The act permits (1) an abuse reporter to request confidentiality or (2) DCF to determine that disclosing the reporter’s name might be detrimental to her or his safety or interests. But DCF must disclose the name (and the name of people who cooperated with an investigation) to:

1. a DCF employee, for reasons reasonably related to DCF business;

2. a law enforcement officer or a state’s attorney, for purposes of investigating or prosecuting a report; or

3. an assistant attorney general representing DCF.

FURTHER DISCLOSURE OF RECORD

Prior law prohibited information disclosed from a person’s record from being further disclosed without consent unless it was disclosed in response to a court order in a pending case involving criminal prosecution or an abuse, neglect, commitment, or termination of parental right proceedings. The act also permits further disclosure (1) based on an order issued by any court of competent jurisdiction or (2) for DPH day care licensing and DSS child care payment decisions.

DENYING ACCESS TO RECORDS

Under existing law, the DCF commissioner can refuse to disclose a record to anyone, including the person who is its subject or his or her attorney. Under prior law, the sole basis for the commissioner do this was her determination that disclosure was not in the best interest of the person or his or her authorized representative. She had to inform the requestor of her decision, its basis, and how to challenge it in court. The act eliminates the consideration of the requestor’s best interests as an express reason, thus apparently eliminating any restriction on the commissioner’s reasons for denying disclosure. When she refuses a request, the act requires her to notify the requestor that she is withholding records and their general contents, in addition to providing her reasons and notice of judicial review options.

AGGRIEVEMENT

The act authorizes people who disagree with some of the DCF’s commissioner’s decisions or actions to file a Superior Court appeal. Under prior law, aggrievement could be established based on allegedly improper disclosures or non-disclosures of:

1. information in the abuse and neglect registry;

2. information concerning a child abuse reporter or cooperating witness;

3. records that the commissioner was permitted, but not required, to release and those whose release was mandatory;

4. information needed for bookkeeping purposes; or

5. records bearing a stamp stating that further disclosure was not allowed.

The act eliminates as sources of aggrievement the improper disclosures or non-disclosures of (1) records for which disclosure is mandated, (2) records involving fee calculations or disputes, and (3) department determinations that disclosure is not in the requestor’s best interest.

It adds as a source of aggrievement the scope of the commissioner’s disclosure of information involving child fatalities and near-fatalities.

Court Appeals

The act expands the reasons on which courts may rely to uphold DCF’s disclosure decisions. Previously, after a hearing and private review of the records, the court had to order disclosure unless it determined that this could be contrary to the requestor or requestor’s representative’s best interests. Under the act, the court may also uphold DCF’s decisions when it determines that disclosure (1) would be contrary to the best interests of the person who is the subject of the record, (2) could reasonably result in the risk of harm to any person, or (3) would contravene the state’s public policy.

CORRECTION OF RECORD ERRORS

The act limits the right of a person named in a record to submit a statement for inclusion in the record concerning what he or she believes is inaccurate information. Under prior law, this entitlement was unqualified. The act removes the reference to “unqualified. ”

OLR Tracking: SP: KM: PF: ts

Incoming search terms:

• ct dcf registry and public records
• how to see my families DCF record in connecticut
• does board of education have access to DCF files
• dcf law changes 2012 connecticut
• ct dcf records online
• dcf of ct current employee phone list
• how to get ct dcf record
• is it legal to provide a dcf client their complete file unredacted?
• obtaining copies of dcf records connecticut
• obtaining ct dcf records

How many children were in foster care on September 30, 2010? 408,425

What were the ages of the children in foster care?

Mean Age	9.4
Median Age	9.2
Less than 1 Year	6%	24,634
1 Year	7%	30,385
2 Years	7%	28,765
3 Years	6%	24,945
4 Years	5%	21,885
5 Years	5%	19,327
6 Years	4%	17,824
7 Years	4%	16,727
8 Years	4%	15,861
9 Years	4%	15,184
10 Years	4%	14,994
11 Years	4%	14,952
12 Years	4%	15,769
13 Years	4%	17,484
14 Years	5%	20,716
15 Years	6%	26,060
16 Years	8%	31,667
17 Years	8%	33,993
18 Years	3%	10,589
19 Years	1%	3,609
20 Years	1%	2,514

 

What were the lengths of stay of children in foster care?

Mean Months	25.3
Median Months	14.0
Less than 1 Month	5%	21,147
1 – 5 Months	21%	86,081
6 – 11 Months	19%	75,684
12 – 17 Months	13%	54,231
18 – 23 Months	9%	36,395
24 – 29 Months	7%	28,384
30 – 35 Months	5%	19,026
3 – 4 Years	11%	44,379
5 Years or More	11%	43,083

 

What were the placement settings of children in foster care?

Pre-Adoptive Home	4%	14,886
Foster Family Home (Relative)	26%	103,943
Foster Family Home (Non-Relative)	48%	194,900
Group Home	6%	25,066
Institution	9%	36,607
Supervised Independent Living	1%	4,050
Runaway	2%	6,563
Trial Home Visit	5%	21,340

 

What were the case goals of the children in foster care?

Reunify with Parent(s) or Principal Caretaker(s)	51%	202,389
Live with Other Relative(s)	4%	14,092
Adoption	25%	96,772
Long Term Foster Care	6%	24,697
Emancipation	6%	24,131
Guardianship	4%	14,574
Case Plan Goal Not Yet Established	5%	18,102

 

What was the gender of the children in foster care?

Male	52%	214,354
Female	48%	193,998

 

What was the race/ethnicity of the children in foster care?

Alaska Native/American Indian	2%	7,839
Asian	1%	2,469
Black	29%	117,610
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander	0%	718
Hispanic (of any race)	21%	84,727
White	41%	165,135
Unknown/Unable to Determine	2%	6,820
Two or more races	5%	21,830

NOTE: All races exclude children of Hispanic origin. Beginning in FY 2000, children could be identified with more than one race designation.

 

How many children entered foster care during FY 2010? 254,375

 

What were the ages of the children who entered care during FY 2010?

Mean Age	7.7
Median Age	6.7
Less than 1 Year	16%	40,857
1 Year	8%	19,419
2 Years	7%	17,497
3 Years	6%	15,256
4 Years	5%	13,252
5 Years	5%	12,140
6 Years	4%	10,956
7 Years	4%	10,133
8 Years	4%	9,168
9 Years	3%	8,685
10 Years	3%	8,414
11 Years	3%	8,364
12 Years	4%	9,115
13 Years	4%	10,864
14 Years	5%	13,384
15 Years	7%	16,505
16 Years	7%	17,011
17 Years	5%	11,755
18 Years	0%	558
19 Years	0%	94
20 Years	0%	37

 

What was the race/ethnicity of the children who entered care during FY 2010?

Alaska Native/American Indian	2%	5,072
Asian	1%	1,839
Black	24%	61,375
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander	0%	544
Hispanic (of any race)	21%	51,805
White	45%	113,510
Unknown/Unable to Determine	2%	5,515
Two or more races	5%	13,038

NOTE: All races exclude children of Hispanic origin. Beginning in FY 2000, children could be identified with more than one race designation.

 

How many children exited foster care during FY 2010? 254,114

 

What were the ages of the children who exited care during FY 2010?

Mean Age	9.6
Median Age	8.8
Less than 1 Year	5%	11,561
1 Year	7%	18,934
2 Years	8%	19,774
3 Years	7%	17,449
4 Years	6%	14,740
5 Years	5%	13,190
6 Years	5%	11,774
7 Years	4%	10,865
8 Years	4%	10,297
9 Years	4%	9,466
10 Years	3%	8,705
11 Years	3%	8,345
12 Years	3%	8,123
13 Years	3%	8,367
14 Years	4%	9,463
15 Years	5%	11,574
16 Years	6%	14,205
17 Years	9%	22,823
18 Years	7%	18,030
19 Years	1%	3,791
20 Years	1%	2,162

 

What were the outcomes for the children exiting foster care during FY 2010?

 

Reunification with Parent(s) or Primary Caretaker(s)	51%	128,913
Living with Other Relative(s)	8%	20,423
Adoption	21%	52,340
Emancipation	11%	27,854
Guardianship	6%	16,208
Transfer to Another Agency	2%	5,114
Runaway	1%	1,504
Death of Child	0%	338

NOTE: Deaths are attributable to a variety of causes, including medical conditions, accidents, and homicide.

 

What were the lengths of stay of the children who exited foster care during FY 2010?

Mean Months	21.7
Median Months	13.5
Less than 1 Month	13%	32,104
1 – 5 Months	15%	39,080
6 – 11 Months	18%	46,060
12 – 17 Months	14%	35,710
18 – 23 Months	10%	25,605
24 – 29 Months	7%	18,517
30 – 35 Months	5%	12,989
3 – 4 Years	10%	26,529
5 Years or More	7%	17,359

 

What was the race/ethnicity of the children who exited care during FY 2010?

Alaska Native/American Indian	2%	5,002
Asian	1%	1,890
Black	27%	68,101
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander	0%	590
Hispanic (of any race)	20%	50,974
White	43%	109,169
Unknown/Unable to Determine	2%	4,481
Two or more races	5%	13,177

NOTE: All races exclude children of Hispanic origin. Beginning in FY 2000, children could be identified with more than one race designation.

 

How many children were waiting to be adopted on September 30, 2010? 107,011

NOTES: Waiting children are identified as children who have a goal of adoption and/or whose parental rights have been terminated. Children 16 years old and older whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and who have a goal of emancipation have been excluded from the estimate.

 

What is the gender distribution of the waiting children?

Male	53%	56,404
Female	47%	50,596

 

How many months have the waiting children been in continuous foster care?

Mean Months	37.3
Median Months	28.3
Less than 1 Month	0%	455
1 – 5 Months	4%	4,126
6 – 11 Months	9%	9,506
12 – 17 Months	14%	14,748
18 – 23 Months	14%	14,825
24 – 29 Months	13%	13,624
30 – 35 Months	9%	9,538
36 – 59 Months	21%	22,571
60 or more Months	16%	17,618

 

What is the racial/ethnic distribution of the waiting children?

Alaska Native/American Indian	2%	1,801
Asian	0%	464
Black	29%	30,812
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander	0%	187
Hispanic (of any race)	22%	23,389
White	39%	42,059
Unknown/Unable to Determine	1%	1,457
Two or more races	6%	6,771

NOTE: All races exclude children of Hispanic origin. Beginning in FY 2000, children could be identified with more than one race designation.

How old were the waiting children when they were removed from their parents or caretakers?

Mean Age	5.0
Median Age	4.1
Less than 1 Year	25%	26,291
1 Year	9%	9,764
2 Years	8%	8,455
3 Years	7%	7,499
4 Years	7%	7,209
5 Years	6%	6,730
6 Years	6%	6,687
7 Years	6%	6,111
8 Years	5%	5,704
9 Years	5%	4,952
10 Years	4%	4,397
11 Years	4%	3,718
12 Years	3%	3,090
13 Years	2%	2,436
14 Years	2%	1,704
15 Years	1%	963
16 Years	0%	403
17 Years	0%	90

 

Where were the waiting children living on September 30, 2010?

Pre-Adoptive Home	13%	13,603
Foster Family Home (Relative)	22%	23,739
Foster Family Home (Non-Relative)	55%	58,681
Group Home	4%	3,872
Institution	5%	5,814
Supervised Independent Living	0%	84
Runaway	0%	466
Trial Home Visit	1%	622

 

How old were the waiting children on September 30, 2010?

Mean Age	8.1
Median Age	7.4
Less than 1 Year	4%	3,795
1 Year	8%	9,070
2 Years	9%	9,746
3 Years	8%	8,551
4 Years	7%	7,408
5 Years	6%	6,582
6 Years	6%	6,025
7 Years	5%	5,627
8 Years	5%	5,519
9 Years	5%	5,333
10 Years	5%	5,260
11 Years	5%	5,115
12 Years	5%	5,057
13 Years	5%	5,050
14 Years	5%	5,095
15 Years	5%	5,452
16 Years	4%	4,637
17 Years	3%	3,689

 

How many children in foster care on the last day of the year had their parental rights terminated for all living parents? 64,084

 

As of September 30, 2010, how many months had elapsed since the parental rights of these foster children were terminated?

Mean Months	24.3
Median Months	12.5

 

How many children were adopted with public agency involvement in FY 2010? 52,891

SOURCE: Adoptions can be reported to the AFCARS adoption database at any time after the adoption has been finalized. This report includes adoptions finalized in FY 2010 reported in regular and revised submissions by June 1, 2011.

NOTES: The number of adoptions reported here do not equal the number of adoption discharges reported under foster care exits because the adoptions reported here include adoptions of some children who were not in foster care but received other support from the public agency. Missing data are not used in the calculation of the percentages.

 

What is the gender distribution of the children adopted from the public foster care system?

Male	51%	26,750
Female	49%	26,132

 

How old were the children when they were adopted from the public foster care system?

Mean Age	6.4
Median Age	5.2
Less than 1 Year	2%	1,126
1 Year	11%	5,823
2 Years	14%	7,461
3 Years	12%	6,103
4 Years	9%	4,833
5 Years	8%	4,182
6 Years	7%	3,587
7 Years	6%	3,107
8 Years	5%	2,813
9 Years	5%	2,531
10 Years	4%	2,183
11 Years	4%	1,981
12 Years	3%	1,702
13 Years	3%	1,528
14 Years	2%	1,190
15 Years	2%	973
16 Years	2%	903
17 Years	1%	675
18 Years	0%	151
19 Years	0%	25
20 Years	0%	7

 

What percentage of the children adopted receive an adoption subsidy?

Yes	90%	47,553
No	10%	5,257

 

What is the racial/ethnic distribution of the children adopted from the public foster care system?

Alaska Native/American Indian	3%	1,822
Asian	0%	219
Black	24%	12,795
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander	0%	94
Hispanic (of any race)	21%	11,192
White	43%	22,764
Unknown/Unable to Determine	1%	536
Two or more races	7%	3,464

NOTE: All races exclude children of Hispanic origin. Beginning in FY 2000, children could be identified with more than one race designation.

 

How many months did it take after termination of parental rights for the children to be adopted?

Mean Months	13.7
Median Months	9.9
Less than 1 Month	3%	1,389
1 – 5 Months	25%	12,778
6 – 11 Months	33%	17,075
12 – 17 Months	18%	9,067
18 – 23 Months	9%	4,498
24 – 29 Months	5%	2,464
30 – 35 Months	3%	1,481
3 – 4 Years	4%	2,177
5 Years or More	2%	813

 

What is the family structure of the child’s adoptive family?

Married Couple	67%	34,973
Unmarried Couple	2%	1,140
Single Female	28%	14,465
Single Male	3%	1,392

 

What was the relationship of the adoptive parents to the child prior to the adoption?

Non-Relative	15%	7,383
Foster Parent	53%	26,308
Stepparent	0%	49
Other Relative	32%	15,714

Incoming search terms:

• how many children were adopted in 2011 through dcf in ct
• number of children in foster care in ct
• 2011 foster care statistics in CT
• corrupt foster care
• corrupt native american foster care
• foster care and ct and waiting children
• foster care statistics 2011 amerina indian
• how many foster children in ct
• children in connecticut foster care statistics 2011
• number of foster children in ct

State Yes No Total N New Jersey 98.4% 1.6% 1,289 New Mexico 100.0% .0% 420 New York 98.6% 1.4% 2,205 North Carolina 100.0% .0% 1,615 North Dakota 64.1% 35.9% 145 Ohio 95.3% 4.7% 1,359 Oklahoma 89.1% 10.9% 1,628 Oregon 99.2% .8% 780 Pennsylvania 92.4% 7.6% 2,363 Rhode Island 97.8% 2.2% 183 South Carolina 76.6% 23.4% 529 South Dakota 100.0% .0% 133 Tennessee 58.8% 41.2% 857 Texas 90.5% 9.5% 4,709 Utah 97.7% 2.3% 574 Vermont 84.5% 15.5% 161 Virginia 92.5% 7.5% 653 Washington 92.3% 7.7% 1,633 West Virginia 98.0% 2.0% 662 Wisconsin 99.6% .4% 755 Wyoming 75.4% 24.6% 69 Puerto Rico 38.9% 61.1% 113

 

Incoming search terms:

• dcf scandle
• Kings Bench jurisdiction kids for cash
• mid atlantic youth services investigation scandal

Well with election time right around the corner the question I have is how much worse could things get? it is so very clear that it just comes down to money and with money brings power. The sad part is the race for power not the people that is very disturbing. the money for for but no food for the poor, children being taken from their families, by agency’s that hurt more than they help. So many families have been hurt, destroyed by this agency, but yet no one seems to care. I cannot express how much information is needed to put an end to this. As hurtful as it is if you can share your experience it will be heard, if you say nothing then more and more families will suffer. it is time to stand up for your family your right to be heard. There are so many agencies out there that will help with little or no charge.. and with new people stepping into office we need to show them we mean business. Enough is enough. No many of what we have been through is not easy to talk about but it is even harder to keep it inside, or wonder where your kids are, who is tucking them in, are they being cared for, regardless of that, they need the parents. DCF CPS they are dirty people, and yes it is about money, they receive more money for taking your kids then keeping them in the home where they are loved.

So please start sharing stories, let us pass on your stories to advocacy groups that may be able to help, lets put an end to DCF and CPS they are nothing but trouble and I do not see them stopping until they have no choice, no voice can be heard unless we speak. with the new election, lets make it a god one, dirty politician or not, this is a huge issue and we have to make it heard