News Media Should Be Helpful to DCF
Since 1965, Connecticut has had a statute designed "to require the reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect" to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families by certain individuals who care for or interact with children.
June 03, 2017 at 12:22 AM
9 minute read
Since 1965, Connecticut has had a statute designed “to require the reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect” to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) by certain individuals who care for or interact with children (described as “mandated reporters”). Teachers have been mandated reporters since 1967. Under the current version of the law, a mandated reporter “shall [make a] report” when he or she has “reasonable cause to suspect or believe” that a child under the age of 18 has suffered abuse, which is defined to include “a condition that is the result of maltreatment, including, but not limited to … sexual molestation or exploitation … emotional maltreatment or cruel punishment.”
It is now abundantly clear that before 2010, Choate Rosemary Hall did not make any reports to DCF regarding adult sexual misconduct that went back as far as the 1960s. It made one such report in 2010, and in July and December 2016, the school filed a number of reports with DCF, based on information that had been available to the school for years. DCF responded to the 2016 reports by stating that they had not been accepted for DCF response. DCF did however report the allegations to law enforcement.
In deciding to address the nearly 50-year cover-up by Choate of several acts of sexual misconduct and sexual assault, the Hartford Courant editorial board chose to attack the department: “Even more incredible, [than Choate's behavior] when Choate officials finally notified the DCF about the complaints in December, the agency rejected them, believing them to be too old to be actionable. That excuse is weak, and DCF's initial refusal to investigate is unconscionable.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEdgar Tatum Spent Decades in Prison. Now Court Acknowledges Unreliability of Evidence
4 minute readWhen an 'Admission' Isn't Enough: Court Provides Clarity in Case With Contradictory Evidence
4 minute readDecision Day in Troconis Murder Conspiracy Trial: Who's Winning? Reviewing Key Moments With Lawyer Lee
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250