Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

1 _;l
1 I Case 3:03-cv-00109-AVC Document 142 Filed 03/08/ 004 Page 1 of 1
I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Rm
5 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I { T; 1
1 .
1 "" DUTKIEWICZ, etal, ¤ CIVIL ACTION NOI3:03-CV-1 AV `) I Z
EI ! 1—
re ¤¤ {7: v. I _aQli§3lI_i§§lI`iI t30l.?ili`
_.; j lis?. ii i i* C lll] C II
g Q "`S‘TAl§§ or coNNscT1cUT : 1
o H DEIQRTMENT OF CHILDREN AND I
o OO FAMILIES, etal, I 1
IJ i E ;i TDeféndants i SeptembeI?8, 2003 I
5 W /1" < 1 1
no PLAINTI§’S MOTION TO COMPEL ALL DEFENDANTS TO EXPUNIJE THEIR RECORDS ;
jj OF ALL STATEMENTS ON OR ABOUT THE PLAIN IIIIFFS I
.,-.| i
sg. On August 26, 2003, Adjudicator, Dale H. King, J.D. ("King") from theI Administrative Hearings i
so I I
Q Unit, overturned and reversed the substantiation ("allegations") against Mrs. Dptkiewicz due t0 the fact I
Fg that The Department of Children and Families ("DCF") could not support anyI of their allegations with
4.n l
U evidence. That is why they had to withdraw their fraudulent petition on Deceiitlber l8, -2002. DCF did
O · 1
EE not have any evidence to support "medical neglect", “education neglect" and "eriiiotional neglect" against
•'-Q U} 1
4: §‘ Mrs. Dutkiewicz, and likewise DCF could to produce any evidence to sI1lpport medical neglect, I
§ I I Q educational neglect and physical neglect on Mr. Dutkiewicz. All of these allegzitions were a direct result 1
u- i 1 Ul I
"[Q .2 E. -, D of failing to conduct a proper investigation due to their gross incompetence and] gross negligence, which I
Ll "hl 1
GJ ` . . . . . . . 1. .
éj M Qi i ,2 resulted in the v1olat1ons of the Plaintiffs due process rights. A sham proceeding Its not due process. ’
*4-i 1 I "' 1 1
,,1 "5 ‘J__ g Nothing on what Defendants, Valerie Jackson ("Jackson”), Supervisor (Iireg Hudson ("Hudson")
·.;¥ _ U ’
3 2 3 C . said at the April l, 2003 hearing was credible or truthful. Nothing what DeIt`endants Katherine Hart
~ · 2 - `.> »
¤· E ei - . 1 .
E lg I . 'S (f§Hart"), Supervisor Maureen Daly ("Da1y”), Supervisor Robert Lapadula ("LaI>adula”) sand at the plea
2: 5 ali? s.» 1
3 "'* I I LJ hearing or in their social study was credible or truthful. Nothing what Defenditnt Lisa Sedlock-Reider 1
Q I E
Q; ("Reider") swore to in the petition she wrote was credible or truthful. Nothing pn what any of the state
rn
tj Defendants said could be supported by any evidence yet they proceeded anyway 1on mere allegations like
:::1 1 -
— as
Il Q they do on all parents. 1
s: ns A I
2 O A I
ru 0 1
2 rn
-
II`III IIII I I