Matthew C. v. Comm'r of Children and Families

• Decision Date: 26 March 2019
• Docket Number: AC 40957
• Citation: 188 Conn.App. 687,205 A.3d 688
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: MATTHEW C. v. COMMISSIONER OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

188 Conn.App. 687

205 A.3d 688

MATTHEW C.

v.COMMISSIONER OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES^*

AC 40957

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 27, 2018

Officially released March 26, 2019

Campbell D. Barrett, with whom were Johanna S. Katz and, on the brief, Jon T. Kukucka, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Daniel M. Salton, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, and George Jepsen, former attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

Lavine, Keller and Beach, Js.

KELLER, J.

The plaintiff, Matthew C., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his administrative appeal following a decision by the defendant, the Commissioner of Children and Families, denying him a hearing to challenge the defendant's decision to substantiate allegations that he neglected his two minor children. The plaintiff avers that the trial court erred by (1) deciding the plaintiff's appeal on a basis not decided by the defendant's administrative hearing officer, (2) declining to equate § 22-12-4 of the policy manual (policy manual) of the Department of Children and Families (department),¹ as derived from § 17a-101k-7 of the department's regulations,² with the doctrine of collateral estoppel, (3) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his request for a substantiation hearing irrespective of whether § 22-12-4 of the policy manual and collateral estoppel are equivalent, and (4) violating his right to fundamental fairness by dismissing his appeal after denying him a substantiation hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The facts and procedural history of the case are as follows. The plaintiff is the father of two minor children, B and E. He became legally involved with the department on September 16, 2015, when neglect petitions were filed by the defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-129, alleging that B and E, who were twelve and ten years of age at the time, had been neglected pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 46b-120.³ On the same date, the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters granted applications filed by the defendant seeking ex parte temporary custody orders and vested temporary custody of the children ex parte in their mother, pending a further hearing, after finding that the children were in immediate physical danger from their surroundings, and that continuation in those surroundings was contrary to their welfare.⁴

The summary of facts accompanying the neglect petitions alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff had demonstrated a pattern of coercive, controlling, and abusive behavior toward the children's mother, to which the children were exposed; that the children had witnessed their mother being screamed at, demeaned, and threatened by the plaintiff; that B had mimicked the plaintiff's behavior in that he engaged in verbally and physically aggressive behavior toward his mother and sister; that B was hospitalized after he damaged his mother's car with a hammer or ax, broke a window, and set four small fires outside the home; that the plaintiff was unwilling to accept voluntary services in order to help B with his mood disorder diagnosis; and that E was directly affected by the plaintiff's actions in that she was fearful in the home, had emotional outbursts, and had become dysregulated with her emotions.

The juvenile court, Hon. Barbara M. Quinn , judge trial referee, held a consolidated hearing on October 2 and 19, 2015, on the applications for orders of temporary custody and on the adjudicatory phase of each of the neglect petitions, which the plaintiff, through his counsel, contested.⁵ On November 3, 2015, the juvenile court rendered its decision concluding that the allegations of the affidavit seeking the orders of temporary custody and the grounds for the neglect alleged in the neglect petitions had been proven. The court sustained the orders of temporary custody and adjudicated both of the children neglected on the basis that they were being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, and were being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well-being.

After being notified that the defendant substantiated allegations that the plaintiff was responsible for the neglect of his children, the plaintiff filed a request for an administrative hearing on February 18, 2016.⁶ On April 4, 2016, the department moved to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal from the substantiation pursuant to the department regulation and § 22-12-4 of the policy manual because the juvenile court already had factually determined that the plaintiff was the perpetrator of the neglect. On April 19, 2016, the plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to dismiss arguing that § 22-12-4 did not apply because there was no determination by the juvenile court that the plaintiff was responsible for the abuse or neglect of his children. He went on to argue that the motion "should also be denied because the policy behind the denial [of hearing] clause of § 22-12-4 does not apply to the facts of the present case." In particular, he argued that § 22-12-4 was based on the common-law doctrine of collateral estoppel and that "the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or the [department] equivalent, § 22-12-4, does not apply because," inter alia, the issue of whether the plaintiff was the perpetrator of the neglect was not actually litigated.

After receiving the motion to dismiss and the objection to the motion, the hearing officer required that the department "submit the [s]ummary of [f]acts submitted to the [j]uvenile [c]ourt in the neglect proceedings" and ordered the parties to "submit a brief on the issue of whether the [plaintiff] is collaterally estopped from proceeding with his substantiation hearing if the issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in the prior action."⁷ On September 26, 2016, the hearing officer issued a written decision granting the department's motion to dismiss, denying the plaintiff's request for a substantiation hearing on the basis of collateral estoppel. In her decision, the hearing officer indicated that the "issue of whether the [plaintiff] has emotionally or physically neglected [his] children has been actually decided ... in the juvenile court proceedings, and, therefore is subject to collateral estoppel."

On November 9, 2016, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183. The parties submitted briefs to the court and, on August 1, 2017, the court, Hon. Henry S. Cohn, judge trial referee, held oral argument on the merits. During argument, the court expressed some skepticism about whether collateral estoppel and § 22-12-4 of the policy manual were substantively identical and whether it was proper for the hearing officer to have applied collateral estoppel instead of the policy manual provision directly related to this matter. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the court ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefs pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (g) on the issue of whether § 22-12-4 of the policy manual was identical to collateral estoppel and whether § 22-12-4 provided an independent administrative basis for dismissal of the request for a substantiation hearing. On October 2, 2017, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which it concluded that although the policy manual provision and the doctrine of collateral estoppel were similar in some respects, "the two concepts are not identical." On the basis of the department regulation and § 22-12-4 of the policy manual, the court concluded that the dismissal of the administrative appeal was proper. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

We commence our discussion by setting forth the standard of review. Judicial review of an administrative decision is governed by statute. See Celentano v. Rocque , 282 Conn. 645, 652, 923 A.2d 709 (2007). When reviewing the trial court's decision, we seek to determine whether that decision is in harmony with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (act), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq. See Dickman v. Office of State Ethics, Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board , 140 Conn. App. 754, 766, 60 A.3d 297, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 934, 66 A.3d 497 (2013). With regard to questions of fact, our cases have made clear that review of administrative agency decisions is limited and "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.... 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Matthew M. v. Dept. of Children & Families , 143 Conn. App. 813, 824, 71 A.3d 603 (2013).

Our Supreme Court also has noted that "[j]udicial review of the conclusions of law reached administratively is also limited. The court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.... Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court determines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Social Services , 288 Conn. 790, 800, 955 A.2d 15 (2008). "Cases that present pure questions of law, however, invoke a broader standard of review than is ordinarily involved in deciding whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.... Furthermore, when a state agency's determination of a question of law has not previously been subject to...