Kathleen Craig v. Department of Children and Families (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Kathleen Craig, appeals ¹ from a June 7, 2010 final decision of the defendant department of children and families (DCF) in which a hearing officer upheld the DCF's staff determination revoking the plaintiff's foster care license.

The DCF's effort to revoke the plaintiff's license was deferred until a substantiation hearing was held in July 2008.   This substantiation hearing resulted in an August 22, 2008 final decision reversing the DCF's allegations of abuse.   A hearing officer for DCF then conducted a license removal hearing in May 2010 and a final decision was issued on June 7, 2010.

The hearing officer adopted the earlier findings of fact of the substantiation hearing as follows:

1. The Appellant ² is a licensed foster and adoptive mother.   Her husband, Richard, passed away on September 19, 2006.   The couple adopted four children, Peter, date of birth October 14, 1990;  Hector, date of birth November 8, 1992;  Amber, date of birth July 29, 1997, and Andrea, date of birth February 28, 1998.   At the current time, the Appellant is also providing foster care to Lamberto M., date of birth November 20, 1998 and Ashley H., date of birth December 4, 1990.

2. Peter has lived with the Appellant since 1999.   He was adopted when he was thirteen.   Peter maintained contact with his biological family until fairly recently.   His biological father died in 2005.

3. Lamberto has enuresis.   He has relatively few nights when he does not wet the bed.

4. Peter's parents placed him in the ROTC program in High School.   He did not like it the first year, and hated it the second.   He transferred to a new high school for the beginning of eleventh grade (September 2007).

5. On October 1, 2007, the Appellant asked Peter's school for assistance getting Peter to school.   The Attendance Counselor went to the home, woke him and brought him to school.   Peter had several suspensions for taking multiple lunches, playing a video game in class, being in the hall without permission and cutting class.   He also received a warning due to an incident with another peer, and his grades were poor.

6. The Department received a referral of alleged abuse and neglect of Peter on November 9, 2007.   According to the report, Peter, who was then seventeen, refused to go home and was staying with family friends.   Peter alleged constant arguing in the home and emotional abuse by the Appellant.   The case was assigned to Brenda Partyka to investigate.

7. Ms. Partyka [from DCF] interviewed Peter at school on November 13, 2007.   Peter said that the arguing between him and his mother had increased since his father's (Richard) death.   He said his mother became angry over little things and constantly told him he could leave if he didn't like the rules.   Peter complained of typical adolescent issues, such as not being allowed to get his driver's permit and not being allowed to do things he wanted to do.

8. Peter was staying with the K[ ] family at the time of the referral.   The two families have been friends for some time, and Mr. and Mrs. K[ ] supported the Appellant through the loss of her husband.   Mr. and Mrs. K[ ] were aware of the conflict between Peter and his mother, and always believed Peter was at fault until Peter played a tape-recording for them of an argument between the two.

9. Peter was upset that Ashley had moved into the home.   Ashley is the older biological sister of Amber, who had once lived in the Appellant's home, had disrupted, been in residential care, and was allowed to return after a series of placement disruptions.   The investigator believed that Peter was jealous of the sibling bond between Ashley and Amber, particularly since his relationship with his own siblings was waning.

10. Peter told the investigator that the Appellant teases Lamberto about his bedwetting, and calls him “diaper boy” and “pisspants.”

11. Peter had an audio tape of an argument between his mother and him.   Peter said that the argument portrayed on the tape was mild compared to some of the arguments they have.

12. The investigator interviewed Ashley on November 13, 2007.   Ashley had recently moved back into the home, and wanted to stay there.   She said that the Appellant would tell Peter that she didn't want to argue, but that Peter would keep at her.   She said that the family was struggling since Dick's (Richard) death.

13. The investigator met with Lamberto (“Lou”) on November 16, 2007, at his school.   Lamberto said that there is a lot of arguing in the home, and that he would like that to change.   He said that one time the Appellant threatened to bring him to the police station if he did not own up to something the Appellant believed he had done.   Lamberto said that Amber is the Appellant's favorite child.   Lamberto did not tell the investigator that he was teased by the Appellant for his bedwetting issues.

14. The investigator interviewed Andrea, Amber, Lou and Hector on November 26, 2007.   Andrea (“Andy”) said that her mother does yell but denied that she calls anyone names.   She said that if she had a magic wand, she would stop the yelling.

15. Amber said that her mother and Peter argued about his phone and the Appellant told Peter, “There's the door.”   She said that if she had a magic wand, she would want the fighting and arguing to stop.   She said that her mother has been nicer since Peter left the home.

16. Hector said that his mother yells a lot, and turns things into arguments.   He said that his mother says “no” to everything.   He said that his mother tells him, “I will put you out.”   Hector said that his mother gets frustrated and then apologizes later.   Hector said that if he had a magic wand, he would stop the yelling.   He said that he thought his mother was bi-polar because she would be happy one minute and flip out the next.   He said that she flipped out over stupid stuff.   Hector said that one time somebody wrote something in the dust on the television.   When no one would admit the act, the appellant drove them all to the Municipal Stadium and threatened to leave them there until somebody admitted it.

17. Peter was interviewed again on November 26, 2007.   He reported an incident from years prior when the Appellant made him and Hector kneel on rice, and that she told the boys if they got up, she would have them removed.   He also said that one time she flipped out and drove them all to Municipal Stadium after someone put their finger through the dust on the television.   Peter said that the Appellant threatened to leave them there if no one admitted it.   He said that she had packed his things on occasion and threatened to have him removed.

18. Kate Kologe, a Behaviorist from Boys and Girls Village, worked with Angel (a former foster child) and Lamberto in the Appellant's home from December 2006 to October 2007.   Ms. Kologe reported that the Appellant is loud and yells, but that she never witnessed any abuse of the children.   The Appellant often asked Kate for advice on how to handle situations with Peter.   She said that Peter does not take no for an answer, and “pushes and pushes and pushes.”

19. George Hayes provided therapy to Peter from September 2006 until March 2007.   He often saw Peter and the Appellant together for sessions.   He described both mother and son as having strong personalities.   He said that they struggled over typical adolescent issues, which were magnified by Peter's history and the death of the father.   He never had concerns for abuse or neglect.   He said the Appellant was strict and rigid.   He said that it was hard for her to be flexible about Peter's independence.   He said that both of them walked out of sessions on occasion.   He said that Peter called the Appellant names and backed her into a corner during some sessions.

20. Laurie R. [ ] contacted the investigator on November 27, 2007.   She reported that she was a family friend, and had concerns about the Appellant.   She reported that the Appellant once flushed the family's fish down the toilet because no one cleaned the tank.   She said that the Appellant constantly screamed, and shut off any friends who became too close to the family.   She said that the Appellant had a really hard time with Lou's bathroom issues and teased him all the time.  (Return of Record, ROR, Exhibit # 6.)

The hearing officer made the following additional findings following the 2010 continued hearing in the final decision of June 7, 2010:

1. The licensee ³ repeatedly threatened the children in her care with removal when she was angry.   On one occasion she drove the children to the Municipal Stadium and threatened to leave them there until someone admitted that they had “written” on the television in the dust.   She also threatened to bring Lamberto to the police station until he admitted doing something the licensee believed he had done.

2. The licensee sometimes packed the children's bags and/or told them “there's the door,” or “I will put you out” when she was unhappy with the children.

3. The licensee has used physical discipline on the foster children in her home.

4. The licensee was aware of the Regulations of State Agencies which prohibit the use of corporal punishment for foster children.  (ROR, final decision, p. 3.)

The hearing officer concluded that the plaintiff had violated DCF regulations §§ 17a–145–49 and 17a–145–51.   The hearing officer found that the plaintiff violated § 17a–145–49 based on the facts found above.   She had not followed the DCF treatment plan for the children, in general by threatening to have the children removed from her home if they disobeyed.   She had violated § 17a–145–51 by failing to end her threatening and intimidating behaviors towards the children.   Under DCF policy § 22–5–6, the hearing officer concluded that the use of threats and coercive control was chronic.   The atmosphere in the plaintiff's home was not appropriate for foster care, and the DCF's decision to revoke the foster care license was upheld.  (ROR, final decision, pp. 3–6.)   This appeal followed.

The sole claim by the plaintiff is that the DCF hearing officer did not have substantial evidence in the record to justify the conclusion that her foster care license should be revoked.   In this appeal, the court follows recent appellate cases setting forth the standard of review.   See Hogan v. Dept. of Children and Families, 290 Conn. 545, 561, 964 A.2d 1213 (2009) (upholding the hearing officer's findings and conclusions):  “Review of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable.”   (Citation omitted.)

In addition, Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Social Services, 288 Conn. 790, 833, 955 A.2d 15 (2008) provides:  “Neither this court nor the trial court may retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact ․ Our ultimate duty is to determine, in view of all the evidence, whether the agency, in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   The fact that the hearing officer discounted contrary evidence in the record does not affect the validity of the DCF decision.   See Papic v. Burke, 113 Conn.App. 198, 211, 965 A.2d 633 (2009):  “In making this determination, we must defer to the agency's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and to the agency's right to believe or disbelieve the evidence presented by any witness ․ in whole or in part.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Also, as the Appellate Court has stated in setting the applicable standard of review:  “Judicial review of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable ․ An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred ․ The substantial evidence rule imposes an important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative agency ․ and ․ provide [s] a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action ․ [I]t is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”  Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 129 Conn.App. 714, 720–21, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011).

The record here is sufficient under the substantial evidence rule to support the decision of the hearing officer.   See Exhibit # 12;  transcript, July 10, 2008, pp. 10–14, 17, 25–28, 31–42, 47, 58, 73;  transcript, July 11, 2008, p. 20;  transcript May 11, 2010, p. 22.

Therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Henry S. Cohn, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The plaintiff's loss of foster care license provides aggrievement for the purposes of General Statutes § 4–183(a)..  FN1. The plaintiff's loss of foster care license provides aggrievement for the purposes of General Statutes § 4–183(a).

FN2. The plaintiff in this appeal was the Appellant at the DCF hearing..  FN2. The plaintiff in this appeal was the Appellant at the DCF hearing.

FN3. This reference is to the plaintiff in this appeal..  FN3. This reference is to the plaintiff in this appeal.

Cohn, Henry S., J.