FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Migdalia Vazquez, Jan Tarr and The Hartford Courant,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-274

 

State of Connecticut, Department of Health Services

 

                        Respondent                  May 26, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 5, 1993, 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 dated and filed with the Commission on July 31, 1992, and supplemented by letter dated August 19, 1992, and filed with the Commission on August 20, 1992, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to provide access to a proposed memorandum of decision regarding the reinstatememt of a licence to the Linden Nursery School.

 

            3.  Specifically in their August 19, 1992 letter, the complainants alleged that by letter dated July 28, 1992 they requested of the respondent a copy of the proposed memorandum of decision referred to in paragraph 2, above.

 

            4.  It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request by letter dated July 29, 1992, claiming that the proposed decision was confidential as it addressed allegations of child abuse and was therefore information related to child abuse.

 

            5.  It is found that on March 3, 1993, the respondent provided the complainants with a copy of a redacted version of the proposed memorandum of decision.

 

            6.  The respondent contends that federal law and state statute exempt all records relating to child abuse, even in

 

Docket #FIC 92-274                           Page 2

 

situations where the confidentiality of the children, parents and guardians, whose identities are protected by such federal law and state statute, are fully protected.

 

            7.  In furtherance of this contention, the respondent cites the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, specifically 42 U.S.C.  5106a(b)(4), which requires the state to "provide for methods to preserve the confidentiality of all [child abuse] records in order to protect the rights of the child and of the child's parents or guardians...."

 

            8.  The respondent also cites 45 CFR 1340.14(i)(1), a federal regulation implementing the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which provides that the state must provide by statute that all records concerning child abuse and neglect are confidential and that their unauthorized disclosure is a criminal offense.

 

            9.  In addition the respondent cites 17a-101(g), G.S., which provides:

 

                        "The information contained in [Department of

                        Children and Youth Services] 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."

 

            10.  The respondent has submitted the unredacted proposed memorandum of decision to the Commission for in camera inspection.

 

            11.  It is found that the 38 page proposed memorandum of decision, comprising in camera document page numbers 92-274-1 through 92-274-38, inclusive, identifies several witnesses by name but excludes all names of child-witnesses and parent-witnesses, with the exception of one parent-witness.

 

            12.  Consequently, with the one exception noted in paragraph 11, above, it is found that disclosure of the entire in camera document would not destroy the confidentiality of the children and parents whose identities are protected by federal law and state statute.

 

            13.  The Commission rejects as unreasonably overbroad the respondent's argument that the statutes and regulation set forth in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, above, exempt from public disclosure a proposed memorandum of decision in a nursery school licencing proceeding, which proceeding also concerns charges of child

 

Docket #FIC 92-274                           Page 3

 

abuse, where the confidentiality of the children and parents, whose identities are protected by such statutes and regulation, are fully protected in the case of disclosure.

 

            14.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to provide prompt access to the proposed memorandum of decision requested by the complainants in their July 28, 1992 letter with the redaction of only the name of the one parent-witness identified in that memorandum.

 

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

 

            1.  The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with a copy of the records comprising in camera document page numbers 92-274-1 through 92-274-38, inclusive.

 

            2.  In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, above, the respondent may redact the name of the one parent-witness identified on lines 5, 20 and 21 of in camera document 92-274-8.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 26, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-274                           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:

Migdalia Vazquez, Jan Tarr and The Hartford Courant

642 Main Street

Middletown, CT 06457

 

State of Connecticut, Department of Health Services

c/o Thomas J. Ring, Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

                                                                  

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission