|
A former
staff member at a state-licensed juvenile detention facility challenged
the validity of his placement on the child abuse and neglect registry
maintained by the Department of Children and Families pursuant to
C.G.S. §17a-101k on the grounds that the factual record did not
support the hearing officer's conclusions; and that the registry
statute itself was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, violated
the separation of powers doctrine and constituted a bill of attainder.
The Supreme Court rejected all of plaintiff's claims.
The court
first outlined the statutory and agency policy criteria for placement
on the central registry which requires placement "when there has
been a determination that the person responsible for child abuse
or neglect poses a risk to the health, safety or well-being of children.''
In making such a determination, various criteria must be considered,
including the plaintiff's intent, the severity of the incident,
the ''chronicity'' of the plaintiff's behavior-meaning whether the
substantiated abuse was not an isolated incident-and whether excessive
force had been used. Noting the narrow standard of review of agency
decisions--which requires the court to determined only whether the
agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of
its discretion--the Supreme Court determined that there was indeed
adequate evidence in the administrative record to support the finding
that the plaintiff was properly placed on the central registry.
As to
the constitutional claims, the Court held that the state claims
were inadequately briefed due to the plaintiff's failure to provide
the analysis set forth in State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 684-85,
610 A.2d 1225 (1992)--a prerequisite to asserting an independent
claim under the state constitution.
The Court
rejected the plaintiff's first federal constitutional claim, holding
that the registry scheme does not violate the separation of powers
doctrine because the parameters in the statute are "sufficiently
clear to guide the [agency] in light of the aim of the legislation.
The [agency] must consider the nature, extent and cause of the abuse
or neglect-terms defined by statute-to determine whether the person
responsible for the abuse poses a risk to the health, safety or
well-being of children."
Secondly,
the Court held that the registry scheme is not unconstitutionally
vague given that the statutory provisions, the DCF policy manual
and ample case law regarding abuse and neglect standards "provide
sufficient specificity to give fair notice and to preclude arbitrary
enforcement."
Finally,
the Court determined that the registry scheme does not constitute
a bill of attainder (a legislative act that applies either to named
individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such
a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial).
The Court held that the registry does not inflict "punishment" in
the manner envisioned or described by the case law on bills of attainder,
and that there was a valid legislative purpose for the registry
scheme, namely to ensure that children are protected from the risk
of physical and emotional harm.
Sarah
Healy Eagan, Esq.
Director, Child Abuse Project
Center for Children's Advocacy
University of Connecticut School of Law
|
