Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00109-AVC Document 134 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ·
DUTKIEWICZ, et al, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03-CVyl09 (AVC) I
PlHiHfl% ; 3 U
E ZYQZ to r
v. /" ‘ I Jg;1 $_f_j_ ,, .. I
STATE or connacrrcur i ri; II»» I I
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ’“‘‘ 1 U l
FAMILIES, et ali; - [ CYL) TT.4. 3*
Dejlmdants i October 1 1, 2003* fg;
’_ F . Qi.; (Q;)
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO EXPUNGE BOARD OF EDUCATION RECORDS
In support of the motion to expunge records at the Board of Education (the "board") and other
locations, the Plaintiffs offers up the following. I
The Plaintiffs are innocent of any and all allegations made by Defendant Principal, Anne Jellison
("Jellison") and all of her statements are contradictory to the facts and what’s actually in the records of all
three minor children. Jellison knowingly made false and misleading statements to the Department of
Children and Families ("DCF"), which resulted in the false charge of educational neglect and the charge
of special needs of Ben Dutkiewicz ("Ben").
J
FACTS
Ben had not gone to Jellison school for 3-years, Ben’s records were not at her school, Ben had no
special needs because he was tested for special needs and did not require them. Mr. Lees at the office of 1
special needs wrote the Plaintiffs a letter confirming that Ben had no special needs. The Superintendent,
Dr. Wasta also stated to Mr. Dutkiewicz in a sit down meeting that Ben had no special needs. Mr. Wasta
also approved, condoned and sanctioned the Plaintiffs home schooling of Ben and complied with all local
and state requirements to do so. Everything J ellison had stated was not based on Ben’s record in the least.
J ellison was not given written permission to speak about Ben’s record. Jellison was only given
permission to speak on or about the twin’s educational records. ]


_ Case 3:03-cv-00109-AVC Document 134 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 2 of 4 I
HISTORY l
There was iiiction amongst parents and teachers with .lellison’s presence and cruelty to children i
and parents. Within the first several weeks of her presents, she divided the cafeteria into black and white
sections. Jellison also discriminated and retaliated against a single black mother by denying her two
children from food from the outside. This discrimination act by Jellison resulted in the NAACP tiling a I
suit against Jellison from her blatant acts of racism. Ms. Dutkiewicz also wrote a number of letters to the
editor of the Bristol Press complaining about Jellison’s appointment but the board refused to do anything. l
Jellison took this opportunity to retaliate against the Plaintiffs by knowingly making statements that were l
not in Ben’s record and that were totally false and misleading and told DCF with the intent to harm. l
The Plaintiffs motion for expungement of the records in the possession of the board and {
individual schools pertain strictly to anything relating to DCF and the Plaintiffs children relating to DCF.
The Plaintiffs are not asking for the board to expunge the academic portion of the record, only that which
puts a bad light on the Plaintiffs which would give anyone who has access to the records the false
impression that the Plaintiff’ s children were somehow neglected or abused for which they are not guilty i
of either. Teachers and office staff have access to the records and the Plaintiffs like all parents who are
victims of DCF fear that those individuals will look at the Plaintiffs with a suspicious eye when in fact the
Plaintiffs are guilty of nothing and that they are fit parents and are not guilty of neglect or abuse. p
UNCONSTITUTIOQAL REPORTING
In fact, DCF policies, statutes and reporting requirements are so broad and nonspecific on what i
constitutes neglect or abuse which makes them unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the
constitution. The Plaintiffs are in fear of individuals filing false complaints based on the perception that
the Plaintiffs were neglectiirl or abusive. This abuse of power is brought out well in- the Scrugs case that l
is presently in Superior Court in Meriden, Connecticut. DCF and the prosecutors assert that a cluttered
home is dangerous yet DCF and the prosecutors failed to show how and why it is dangerous and to what
degree a house becomes dangerous and failed to show through expert witness testimony that a cluttered
house is dangerous. They also failed to show any connection between a cluttered house and the
2 i
l

6 Case 3:03-cv-00109-AVC Document 134 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 3 of 4
3
* psychological well being of a child with expert witness testimony. The reason being is there is no l X
connection and a cluttered house does NOT pose an immanent danger to children. The prosecutors and \
DCF will loose this case on appeal mark my word. United District Judge, James G. Carr who ruled in the i
Walsh v. Erie Cotmty, 3:01-cv-7588 stated so. DCF policies are ambiguous at best and is suspect do to i
its very broad opinion. This is also brought out in a recent decision on “Mandated Reporters" in the state I
of Missouri where the reporting requirements on mandated reporters was to broad and indefinite was
unconstitutional when Child Protection attempted to prosecute Leslie Ann Brown on bogus claims.
In conclusion, the Plaintiffs are very concerned on the form and manner in which the Plaintiffs K
will be dealt now and in the future by the board and teaching staff The Plaintiffs are also concerned on i
who has access to these records kept in the individual schools. What is contained in the records will make
anyone who has access to those records suspicious of the Plaintiffs, which makes the Plaintiffs feel they
are vulnerable when they know what Jellison said was false and misleading and not according to the facts.
The Plaintiffs motion for expungement should be GRANTED in its entirety. l
1
l
t

3 l
l

I
( Case 3:03-cv-00109-AVC Document 134 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 4 of 4 1
. 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the Plaintiff has caused a copy of the above-named document was
mailed/faxed to the following interested persons on October 1 1, 2003. y
1
United States District Court Kaycee Ca11ahan,.Esq. [
District of Connecticut Updike Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. {
Office of the Clerk One State Street I
United States Court House Hartford, CT 06123-1277 ¥
450 Main Street 1
Hartford, CT 06103-3095
Clare E. Kindall, Esq. Patrick M. Fahey, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
Office ofthe Attorney General One American Row
55 Elrn Street Hartford, CT 06103-2819
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Alexandria L. Voccio, Esq. Bonnie Maskery i
Howd & Ludorf Rainbow ln a Tear Workshops, LLC
65 Wethersfield Av. 16 Minnesota Lane i
Hartford, CT 06114-1102 Bristol, CT 06010-2842 1
Pediatric Associates
10 North Main Street
Bristol, CT 06010-8102

1
l
Z Q E, ~
Thomas Dutkiewicz Aimee Dutkie `cz
32 Terryville Av., 3rd Floor
Bristol, CT 06010 ` '
(860) 585-1136 I

1
4 i
1