NATASHA B.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES[*]
Argued
January 14, 2019
Procedural
History
Administrative
appeal from the decision by a hearing officer of the
defendant upholding a substantiation of a finding of physical
abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect by the
plaintiff against a minor child and placing the
plaintiff's name on the defendant's child abuse and
neglect central registry, brought to the Superior Court in
the judicial district of Waterbury, where the matter was
transferred to the judicial district of New Britain and tried
to the court, Huddleston, J.; judgment
dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to
this court. Affirmed.
Dale
R. Funk, for the appellant (plaintiff).
John
E. Tucker, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the
brief, were George Jepsen, former attorney general, and
Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee
(defendant).
Sheldon, Keller and Bear, Js.
OPINION
BEAR,
J.
The
plaintiff, Natasha B., appeals from the judgment of the trial
court dismissing her appeal from the decision of a hearing
officer of the defendant, the Department of Children and
Families (department), who upheld the department's
decision to substantiate allegations of physical abuse,
physical neglect, and emotional neglect by the plaintiff
against a minor child and to place the plaintiff's name
on its child abuse and neglect central registry (central
registry). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court
improperly concluded that (1) a finding of chronicity was not
required to place the plaintiff's name on the central
registry, and (2) the hearing officer did not improperly
shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff to demonstrate
changed conditions that would justify removal of her name
from the central registry. We affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
The
following facts, as found by the hearing officer, and
procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff
was employed as a ‘‘one to one'' worker
for a thirteen year old minor child, C, at a residential
treatment facility. On July 13, 2007, C was sent to her room
after she and other residents began throwing chairs. C
attempted to leave her room by forcing open the door while
the plaintiff held the door shut from outside the room. After
C forced open the door, the plaintiff pushed C back into the
room, where a physical struggle ensued. During the struggle,
the plaintiff repeatedly struck C in the face with a closed
fist before other staff members separated the plaintiff and
C. C was subsequently transported to the hospital after
sustaining scratches and bruises to her face. As a result of
the incident, the plaintiff was terminated from her position
and was charged with risk of injury to a child and assault in
the third degree. The charges against the plaintiff were
dismissed in 2009 after she satisfied the conditions required
for her accelerated rehabilitation.
After
its investigation of the incident, the department
substantiated allegations of physical abuse, physical
neglect, and emotional neglect by the plaintiff against
C[1]
and placed the plaintiff's name on its central registry.
See General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) §§ 17a-101g and
17a-101k.[2] On January 26, 2015, [3] the plaintiff,
after being told by a prospective employer that her name was
on the central registry, wrote a letter to the department
seeking to remove her name from the central
registry.[4]After receipt of the letter, the department
scheduled a substantiation hearing. At the hearing, the
plaintiff, who initially represented herself, testified about
the 2007 incident with C and asserted that, since the
incident, she had completed court-mandated counseling and
community service and that she had not been involved in any
other incidents with minor children.
On
February 23, 2015, the hearing officer issued a notice to
both parties, stating that additional testimony and evidence
was required to determine whether the plaintiff's name
should remain on the central registry. Specifically, the
notice informed the parties that they should be prepared to
present evidence regarding whether the plaintiff had
demonstrated changed conditions since the incident. Moreover,
the hearing officer stated that specific documentation was
needed from the plaintiff regarding her claims of completion
of community service and counseling requirements, her job
history, and confirmation that she had no further incidents
with a minor child. The second day of the hearing took place
on May 17, 2016.[5]
In her
written final decision, the hearing officer upheld the
department's decision to substantiate the allegations
against the plaintiff for physical abuse, physical neglect,
and emotional neglect of C and to place her name on the
central registry. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court,
which affirmed the decision of the hearing officer and
dismissed the appeal.[6] The plaintiff then appealed to this court.
Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
I
The
plaintiff first claims that the court improperly concluded
that a finding of chronicity[7] was not required to place the
plaintiff's name on the central registry. Specifically,
the plaintiff argues that, because the hearing officer made
an explicit finding that there was ...