CONNECTICUT HOUSE BILL 5468 DESTROYS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INSTRUCT YOUR OWN CHILDREN
Attorney Deborah G. Stevenson • March 6, 2026
NHELD is providing this first look summary of HB5468, a bill that requires immediate defeat In Connecticut. .
We first provide the language of the law, CGS §10-184 as it exists now, and how the supporters of this bill have now repealed and replaced it with the language in HB5468.
EXISTING 10-184:
§ 10-184. Duties of parents. School attendance age requirements
“All parents and those who have the care of children shall bring them up in
some lawful and honest employment and instruct them or cause them to be
instructed in reading, writing, spelling, English grammar, geography,
arithmetic and United States history and in citizenship, including a study of
the town, state and federal governments.
Subject to the provisions of this section and section 10-15c, each parent or other person having control of a child five years of age and over and under eighteen years of age shall cause
such child to attend a public school regularly during the hours and terms the public school in the district in which such child resides is in session, unless such child is a high school graduate or the parent or person having control of such child is able to show that the child is elsewhere receiving equivalent instruction in the studies taught in the public schools.
For the school years commencing July 1, 2011, to July 1, 2022, inclusive, the parent or person
having control of a child seventeen years of age may consent, as provided in this section, to such child's withdrawal from school. For the school year commencing July 1, 2023, and each school year thereafter, a student who is eighteen years of age or older may withdraw from school.
Such parent, person or student shall personally appear at the school district office and
sign a withdrawal form. Such withdrawal form shall include an attestation from a guidance counselor, school counselor or school administrator of the school that such school district has provided such parent, person or student with information on the educational options available in the school system and in the community.
The parent or person having control of a child seventeen years of age may withdraw such child from school and enroll such child in an adult education program pursuant to section 10-69. Such parent or person shall personally appear at the school district office and sign an
adult education withdrawal and enrollment form. Such adult education withdrawal and enrollment form shall include an attestation (1) from a school counselor or school administrator of the school that such school district has provided such parent or person with information on the educational options available in the school system and in the community, and (2) from such parent or person that such child will be enrolled in an adult education program upon such child's withdrawal from school.
The parent or person having control of a child five years of age shall have the option of not sending the child to school until the child is six years of age and the parent or person having control of a child six years of age shall have the option of not sending the child to school until the child is seven years of age.
The parent or person shall exercise such option by personally appearing at the school district office and signing an option form. The school district shall provide the parent or person with information on the educational opportunities available in the school system.”
HB5468 REPEALS the entirety of the existing §10-184, and replaces it in the following manner:
The bill completely turns the statute on end.
Now, the phrase, “duty of parents” no longer exists.
Now, instead, there is a definition of “equivalent instruction”, which is defined as “the provision of education by a parent or a guardian of a child in a setting other than a public school or nonpublic school. “
Furthermore, the bill not only re-defines instruction by parents, it also redefines and restricts the existence of private schools.
Department of Education, or (B) files a student attendance report with
the Commissioner of Education pursuant to section §10-188.
What used to be the first sentence of §10-184, , i.e., the compulsory education portion of the statute, now is relegated to the middle of the bill. That portion says,
“(b) All parents and guardians of children shall bring such children up
in some lawful and honest employment and instruct or cause suchchildren to be instructed in reading, writing, spelling, English grammar,
geography, arithmetic and United States history and citizenship,
including a study of town, state and federal governments. Subject to the
provisions of this section and section 10-15c, each parent or guardian of
a child, who is five years of age and over and under eighteen years of
age and not a high school graduate, shall cause such child to (1) enroll
in public school regularly during the hours and terms the public school
in the district in which such child resides is in session, (2) attend a
nonpublic school, or (3) receive equivalent instruction in the studies
taught in the public schools.”
However, part of the existing §10-184, i.e., the compulsory attendance portion of the statute, has been completely eliminated. The portion that was eliminated stated:
“Subject to the provisions of this section and section 10-15c, each parent or other person having control of a child five years of age and over and under eighteen years of age shall cause
such child to attend a public school regularly during the hours and terms the public school in the district in which such child resides is in session, unless such child is a high school graduate or the parent or person having control of such child is able to show that the child is elsewhere receiving equivalent instruction in the studies taught in the public schools.
For the school years commencing July 1, 2011, to July 1, 2022, inclusive, the parent or person having control of a child seventeen years of age may consent, as provided in this section, to such child's withdrawal from school.”
The last portion of the existing §10-184, regarding parents opting not to send to a public school five year old children until they are six, and not to sent six year olds until seven remains in the bill, but the bill adds a requirement that the parent of a five year old who signed an option form must personally appear and sign a form stating whether the child will be enrolled in a public school, attending a nonpublic school, or receiving equivalent instruction, and it also requires a parent to provide evidence to prove the child will be attending a nonpublic school.
The bill then adds several other requirements that were never contained in the existing §10-184. Those other requirements include:
1. Fourteen days after parents move into a school district during the school year, parents are required to personally appear at the school district to sign an intent form indicating whether the child will be enrolled in a public school, nonpublic school, or receiving equivalent instruction, and provide proof if the child will be enrolled in a non public school.
2. If a parent withdraws from a nonpublic school, the parent is required to show up at the public school the child previously attended and must sign an updated intent form indicating whether the child will be enrolling in a public school or will be receiving equivalent instruction.
4. If a parent withdrew a child from a public school to receive equivalent instruction, the parent is required to submit to the public school district a continuation of equivalent instruction form.
5. If a parent withdrew or filed a continuation of equivalent instruction form in the prior year, the parent is required to submit to the public school district a continuation of equivalent instruction form in the following year. And each year thereafter a continuation form is required to be filed by a parent.
6. If a school district has not received a withdrawal form, a intent to educate form, or a continuation of equivalent instruction form before September 1, the local school board is required to make three attempts to contact the parent informing the parent that they are required to submit a continuation of equivalent instruction form; and if no contact is made, the local school board is required to notify the State Department of Education.
7. Beginning July 1, 2027 and each year thereafter, a parent may withdraw a child from a public school to attend a nonpublic school by personally appearing at the public school to sign a withdrawal form, but the withdrawal is not effective unless the parent provides evidence to show that the child will be attending a nonpublic school.
8. Beginning July 1, 2027 and each year thereafter, a parent may withdraw a child from a public school to receive equivalent instruction by personally appearing at the school district and signing a withdrawal form, but the withdrawal is not effective until the board of education notifies the parent that the child may be withdrawn following receipt of a notice from the Department of Children and Families, (DCF).
9. No later than two days after receiving a withdrawal form, the local board of education is required to compile the child’s education records, send them to DCF to review to see if the child is under a protective order or is receiving protective services. Then DCF has two days to review and to notify the local school district of the results of the review. If DCF reports back that the child is not under a protective order or receiving protective services, then the local board is to notify the parent that the child may be withdrawn and is to transfer the child’s education records to the parent. If DCF notifies the district that the child is under a protective order or receiving protective services, then the parent is notified that the withdrawal is not effective and the child may not be withdrawn from the public school.
10. Parents of a child receiving equivalent instruction are required to provide a demonstration of the child’s academic work in accordance with State Education Department guidelines to prove the child is being educated. To do that, a parent may provide a portfolio that may include, curriculum, the child’s work, a standardized test, evidence of online classes or enrollment in a community college, causing a child to take a statewide mastery exam administered by the local school district or provider, or by receipt of a state issued diploma.
11. Parents of a child receiving equivalent instruction are required to retain the child’s records for at least three years.
12. The State Department of Education is to provide “guidance” regarding the provision of equivalent instruction.
13. A local board of education shall permit a resident child of the district to take up to two classes in a public school, participate in extracurricular activities and athletics, provided that the child meets the requirements of §10-204a and §206 and complies with the public school’s handbook. The child will be considered to be enrolled in the public school part time. (§10-204a is the requirement for vaccinations; §10-206 requires oral health assessments).
14. Children receiving equivalent instruction but who participate in public school classes, extracurricular activities, or athletics are to be counted as enrolled public school students at the expense of the town. (Presumably for funding purposes).
To summarize, this bill is a draconian measure designed to bring parents of children in private schools, aka “nonpublic schools”, and parents of children educating their own children, aka “receiving equivalent instruction” under the control of the public school system, and DCF, in this State. This bill requires those parents to jump through hoops, to prove that they are lawfully enrolling in a private school or lawfully providing instruction of their own children, and to receive DCF “approval” before they are allowed to instruct their own children, despite there being no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the children are not being lawfully educated.
The fact that the bill also compels parents and their children to obtain “approval” of their choice to educate their own children from DCF before being allowed to withdraw their children from a public school is obnoxious and obscene, and a violation of the parents’ fundamental right to the upbringing and education of their child. Further, it precludes any parent who is under a protective order, or who merely is receiving protective services, from ever withdrawing their child from a public school, no matter what the reason is.
The bill also allows for the collection and sharing of the data and records of children who have withdrawn from a public school without the consent of the parents.
More insidiously, the bill entices, or bribes, unsuspecting parents into further control by the public school system by allowing children who have withdrawn from the public school to take classes and extracurricular activities at the public schools, but the catch to that is that the children will be considered “enrolled” in those public schools, albeit part time, such that they then become required to submit to vaccinations and health assessments.
All in all, it is an unconstitutional power grab by those who seek further control of children who have left the public school system for the fundamental right and freedom to be educate their children elsewhere. It violates federal law in its data sharing provisions. iI removes the presumption of innocence; it violates due process, equal protection, and search and seizure provisions of our federal and state Constitutions and places a child on a parent’s fundamental rights. Astoundingly, it overturns 376 years of precedent and the fundamental right and duty of parents to instruct their own children. It is primarily proposed by those supporting this bill to deflect the blame away from the State agencies who utterly failed to do their duty to protect from captivity, abuse, neglect, and death certain children who were enrolled in the public schools and onto some other scapegoat, namely homeschool parents..
This is a heinous display of cowardice, immorality, and utter disdain and shredding of our federal and State Constitutions in this “Constitutional State”, all for the sake of deflecting blame by scapegoating lawfully abiding segments of the population - private school parents and homeschooling parents. This bill is a disgusting power play by unscrupulous, control hungry politicians who don’t have the integrity or intestinal fortitude to abide by the Constitution, to tell the truth, or to put the blame where it actually belongs - on themselves and on the State agencies involved. This bill is wholly unacceptable, intolerable, outrageous, and must be utterly defeated.
Let all parents in this State know that either this bill will be defeated, or the legislators supporting it will be defeated at the polls in November.
The time is now to send a message, loudly and clearly. In particular, it is time for the thousands of parents to show up, not only at the Capitol, but especially at the polls.
Defeat the bill, or defeat the legislators supporting it. The time is now.
The statisticians say it contains “No Statistical Analysis that could be used to make any inference about the impact of Homeschooling on DCF referral rates”. Apparently, legislators cannot rely on that OCA report, at all. Better vote NO to any homeschool regulation that is based on it. Read it for yourself below and you be the judge. Evaluation of the State of Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate Review of Children Withdrawn From School For Equivalent Instruction Elsewhere: A Statistical Perspective By Eric Bae & Timothy E. Moore September 28, 2025 Disclaimer This report is intended solely for informational and internal evaluative purposes. The analyses and conclusions herein are based on available data and statistical modeling assumptions that may not account for all contextual factors. This report does not constitute legal advice, expert testimony, or a certified audit. It is not intended to be used, cited, or relied upon in any legal proceeding, litigation, or regulatory action. The authors and affiliated institutions expressly disclaim any liability for decisions made or actions taken based on the contents of this report. Contents Overview 3 Question Responses 3 In a normal statistical analysis, what should one typically do? 3 Was the gold standard used by the OCA in her report? 4 Did she propose a hypothesis or take the necessary steps to reach her conclusions? 4 Did the OCA conduct a statistical analysis? 4 How would you describe her report? 4 What are the differences between a statistical analysis and a descriptive report? 4 What are some of the problems you see with her report? 5 Did the OCA conduct a normal analysis? 6 What did the OCA do regarding the numbers she chose and any inferences she made from them? 6 What should be done for an appropriate statistical analysis, given the facts in the report? 6 Is there any way to check the figures for accuracy in her report to see if they are correct?7 Can one make reasonable or accurate inferences from a descriptive report versus a statistical analysis? 7 Conclusion 8 Recommendations 8 Overview This report provides an evaluation of the “Review of Children Withdrawn From School For Equivalent Instruction Elsewhere” report, dated May 5th, 2025. The aims of this report are to: i. examine the analytical aspects of the review, and ii. provide recommendations on how the findings of the review could be strengthened by more transparent data reporting, and more rigorous statistical analysis. Note that text of some of the questions has been adjusted for clarity. Question Responses In a normal statistical analysis, what should one typically do? Statistical analysis does not adhere to a singular "normal" approach; rather, it varies according to several factors, including the research questions, the nature of the data (e.g., categorical, binary, continuous), sample size, underlying distributions, the number of variables involved, and the specific research context and hypotheses being tested. However, statistical analyses generally include the following: Clearly defined research questions that include population and treatment(s) or comparison groups of interests. Here, population represents the group of individuals/subjects/objects where samples are drawn. Clearly defined variables (of interest) that are used to address the research questions. Description of the statistical methodology used. Conclusions based on the analysis. Hypothesis testing is one of the most common forms of statistical analyses, where an alternative hypothesis, typically of a specific effect/association, is contrasted with a null hypothesis, typically of there being no effect/association. For example: Null hypothesis: there is no difference in DCF report rates between children Withdrawn from school. Alternative hypothesis: children withdrawn from school tend to have higher DCF report rates than children not withdrawn from school. The goal of a hypothesis-testing statistical analysis would be to identify whether the data analyzed are consistent with the alternative hypothesis. Was the gold standard used by the OCA in her report? No. There was no statistical methodology. There is no formal descriptive analysis, nor any hypothesis testing. Is there a hypothesis or are the necessary steps to reach the reports conclusions presented? No, the hypothesis is unclear. On page 2 under the brief summary of findings section in the report, it is stated that “While Connecticut has robust procedures for following up on children who are not attending school, once children are withdrawn for the purpose of enrolling in private school in Connecticut or to be homeschooled, nothing is in place to ensure those children are, in fact, receiving educational services.” However, on page 3, the comparisons on the DCF referrals are made between pupils attending private schools and pupils who are homeschooled. There is no DCF referral information for students who continue to attend public schools (those who were not withdrawn at all) or for all state-wide students, nor is there information for students who have always been homeschooled or attended private schools. Given only the information provided in the OCA report, it is not possible to test whether students who are homeschooled have a higher average rate of DCF referrals than either those who attend traditional schools or all students in the state of Connecticut. Did the OCA conduct a statistical analysis? No. The OCA report does not contain any statistical analyses. There is no formal descriptive analysis, nor any hypothesis testing. How would you describe her report? It is a descriptive report aimed at providing information on rates of DCF referrals for children withdrawn from traditional schooling over different time periods. T he reason we refer to this as not a formal descriptive analysis or hypothesis testing is that no contrast is made to rates of DCF referrals for children who remain in traditional schooling environments. What are the differences between a statistical analysis and a descriptive report? A statistical analysis has a clearly defined research question, hypotheses, and a statistical test to answer the research question. A descriptive report contains descriptive statistics (sample size, means, medians, variances, and distributions of variables). Statistical analyses usually include descriptive statistics, as performing the latter is key to determining the approach for the former. However, descriptive reports (as is the case of OCA) often do not include statistical analyses or formal hypothesis statements. What are some of the analytical problems you see with this report? See the response to the question “Is there a hypothesis or are the necessary steps to reach the reports conclusions presented?” Additional analytical challenges include: No attempt to control for the various covariates that are present and can explain the discrepancy in DCF referrals better than the homeschooling vs. traditional schooling. The pupils who were withdrawn from traditional schools for homeschooling may have already had higher rates of abuse and neglect even before the withdrawal than those who were not withdrawn from traditional schools. This implies that there were some other factors that better explain the difference in DCF referrals between the two groups, but homeschooling itself is not what explains it (Lurking variable). The OSA’s own report seems to suggest this by stating that “[of] the children aged 7 to 11, 31% were chronically absent and 19% were children identified as students with special education needs prior to their withdrawal from public school (page 2).” It is important to factor in covariates, such as parental occupations, income, gender, ethnicity, disability status, types of schools (public, private, magnet, etc.) the pupils attend or have attended, geographic area where they live, and many more, that explain the difference in abuse rates between the two groups. The footnote #8 of the OCA report states that “OCA randomly selected a sample of 250 children who were withdrawn for the stated purpose of attending private school and cross referenced those children with DCF records. OCA found that 10.4% had at least one accepted report, 3% had four or more accepted reports…” OCA report does not mention pupils who are attending other school types. There may be biases in sampling or data collection . If DCF referrals are filed as a result/retaliation of students taken out of traditional schools for homeschooling, then the DCF referral is not an appropriate representation for abuse and neglect, hence does not represent the true rates of abuse and neglect in the traditional-to-homeschooling population. There is also no distinction in the types of DCF referrals, or the timing of the referrals based on when children were withdrawn. This makes even conclusions based on this data problematic, and potentially biased. Did the OCA conduct a normal analysis? The OCA report does not conduct any statistical analyses. See responses for “Is there a hypothesis or are the necessary steps to reach the reports conclusions presented?” and “What are some of the analytical problems you see with this report?” for more information. What did the OCA do regarding the numbers chosen and any inferences made from them? OCA reported the sample size of the “withdrawn to homeschooling” group (unclear if 774 or 747; the latter must be a typo) and the “withdrawn to private schools” group (250), and that they were “randomly sampled.” OCA also report that 22.9% of pupils in the “withdrawn to homeschooling” group and 10.4% of pupils in the “withdrawn to private school” group had at least one accepted DCF referral; 7.9% of pupils in the “withdrawn to homeschooling” group and 4.0% of pupils in the “withdrawn to private schools” had 4 or more accepted DCF referrals; 9.6% in the “withdrawn to homeschooling” group and 4.4% in the “withdrawn to private schools” group lived in families with at least one substantiated DCF referrals; and 3.8% of pupils in the “withdrawn to homeschooling” group and 2.0% of pupils “withdrawn to private schools” had a caregiver in the DCF Central Registry. In contrast to the “withdrawn to homeschooling” group, which were measured over the 3-year timeframe, it is unclear what the timeframe of the DCF referrals for the “withdrawn to private schools” is because it is not mentioned in the report. The OCA also reports that “[in] 2023, DCF received 69,562 reports. Of those, 32,462 were accepted. Of the 32,462 accepted, 3,733 (11.4%) were substantiated.” However, these numbers are not useful without the total number of students in the state and linking the accepted DCF referrals to the pupils. In addition, the DCF reports for the “withdrawn to homeschooling” are obtained across a three-year timeframe (2021-2024), but the total statewide DCF reports is only for a single year 2023. This is not an apple-to-apple comparison. Given the information provided in the report, the only inference that can be made is between “withdrawn to homeschooling” group and “withdrawn to private schools” groups. However, this does not seem to be the primary focus of the OCA report. What should be done for an appropriate statistical analysis, given the facts in the report? The report is missing crucial information to conduct appropriate statistical analysis. First, the report is missing and formally stated hypotheses and any description of the data used to support any conclusions. Second, and relatedly, the same set of values that are provided for the “withdrawn to homeschooling” and “withdrawn to private schools” groups should be provided for the general population of students (those who are not homeschooled). Additional information that would be helpful includes: Number of students across the entire state. This could be used as a denominator to convert counts to proportions, e.g., what proportion of children in the state are homeschooled? DCF referrals data across the same timeframe for which the homeschooling DCF referral data are presented (e.g. 2021-2024). This would allow for a more direct comparison, e.g., X% of children who were homeschooled between 2021 and 2024 had DCF referrals vs Y% of children who are in traditional school had DCF referrals between 2021 and 2024. Proportion of traditional school pupils with at least 1 DCF referrals in the timeframe. Proportion of traditional school pupils with 4 or more DCF referrals in the timeframe. Proportion of traditional school pupils living in families with at least one substantiated DCF investigation. Proportion of traditional school pupils living in families with a caregiver on the DCF central registry. Having data on both home-schooled and traditionally schooled children would strengthen the argument that there are different rates of DCF referrals between them. Without them, there is no comparison group. Is there any way to check the figures for accuracy in her report to see if they are correct? There is no access to DCF records to see if the figures in the report are correct. Therefore, it is not possible to tell whether the OCA numbers are correct. Can one make reasonable or accurate inferences from a descriptive report versus a statistical analysis? In some descriptive reports, some reasonable or accurate inferences can be made. However, in the OCA report, this is not possible due to lack of information, specifically the lack of information on rates of referrals, etc. in children attending traditional schools (see above). Conclusion From a statistical perspective, there is too little information presented in the report for any inference to be made . To make inference, we would need information about DCF reporting rates from traditional school settings (acting as the comparison group). This report can be described as a purely descriptive report, but it still lacks key information. Besides the lack of a comparison to traditionally schooled children, additional challenges with using the report to conclude that there are differences in DCF referral rates for homeschooled children include: There is no differentiation between types of reports, e.g., physical abuse vs mental health. There is no information on the timing of the reports, i.e., pre- vs post-withdrawal for homeschooling. There is no discussion about the overlap of characteristics. For example, what are the frequencies of DCF accepted reports for Special Ed vs non-Special Ed students? Ultimately, there is no statistical analysis in this report that could be used to make any inference about the impact of homeschooling on DCF referral rates and whether the rates differ between homeschooled children and traditionally schooled children. Our overall impression after reviewing this report is that, while the report provides some details about DCF referral rates, these rates are not put into the broader context of referrals for the general school-going population. If these data exist, they should be included so that more formal hypothesis testing, and thus inference, can be conducted. Recommendations Our main recommendation would be to produce a comparison group that could be used in a quasi-experimental procedure to compare rates presented in this sample to statewide/traditionally schooled children. More detailed comparison of CT to other New England states (with different regulatory requirements) to see whether rates of reports are different (again with matched comparisons). This is challenging due to other differences between states (in reporting requirements, etc.)
Senator Looney, together with Representative Corey Paris, have just placed a revised bill SB6 before the Children’s Committee that requires the reporting of EVERY PARENT who dares to withdraw their child from a public school to the Department of Children and Families for investigation. That means that ANY PARENT who withdraws their child from enrollment in a public school, for ANY REASON, whether it is to go to a private school, homeschool, or to another public school, will be reported to DCF for investigation, just for withdrawing. That completely removes the presumption of innocence from ALL parents who withdraw their children, and seriously chills the freedom of parents whose children remain enrolled in public schools, by instilling in those parents a real fear knowing that they will be reported to DCF just for withdrawing, thereby coercing those parents into leaving their children enrolled in the public school. This is outrageous and a total destruction of liberty and of our current system of government. Parents not only have their presumption of innocence removed, but also will be seriously and improperly coerced into remaining in the failing public school system against their will. This is NOT the way our system of government works. This is a blatant disregard of our system of government, and an apparent attempt to destroy that system of government and the rights of parents. These are not tactics employed by those who took an oath of allegiance to our Constitution. These are the tactics of autocracies and dictators in violation of their oaths. NHELD calls on all parents of this State, especially those Democrat and Unaffiliated parents of this State, to express their outrage directly to Senator Looney, Representative Paris, and every member of the Children’s Committee, to VOTE NO on SB6 now, or face the wrath of all parents in November in the voting booth. If these legislators do not VOTE NO on SB6, then let the public VOTE NO to any legislator who votes in favor this most heinous bill. You can find: the text of the bill here: https://cga.ct.gov/2026/TOB/S/PDF/2026SB-00006-R01-SB.PDF Senator Looney’s email address here: looney@senatedems.ct.gov Rep. Paris’s email here: Corey.Paris@cga..ct.gov The list of members of the Children’s Committee here: https://cga.ct.gov/kid/
On May 5, 2025, just before the legislature’s Education and Children’s Committees held their “informational Hearing” on regulation of homeschooling, the State’s Child Advocate publicized a “A Review of Children Withdrawn from School for Equivalent Instruction Elsewhere”. In that “Review”, the Child Advocate stated that news of the known starvation of a child enrolled in the public school for five years whose stepmother is charged with continuing the starvation of the child during his captivity at home for 20 years, “prompted renewed discussions about homeschooling in Connecticut”. So , the Child Advocate said she wrote her report “to highlight an ongoing previously identified systemic issue that must be addressed by policy makers: that some parents and guardians withdraw their children from school, isolate their children, shield themselves from reports to our child welfare agency, and neglect or abuse their children.”. The report concluded by proposing a host of new legislative proposals to change the law and more stringently regulate homeschooling. On that same day, May 5, 2025, NHELD filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the Child Advocate to provide the documents she used underlying the findings and recommendations made in that report. However, the Child Advocate denied NHELD’s request claiming that the records should remain secret because they contained “confidential information during the course of investigations”. NHELD appealed the denial to the Freedom of Information Commission, which scheduled a hearing on the matter in December of 2025. Only days before the hearing was to occur, however, the Child Advocate filed a Motion to Dismiss NHELD’s appeal, on the grounds that the Commission did not have “jurisdiction” to hear the appeal arguing the records should be kept secret. The hearing then was postponed. NHELD objected to the Motion to Dismiss and requested the Hearing Officer to DENY it because the records underlying the report were not confidential and were not obtained during an investigation. This is particularly true when the OCA, herself, admitted in her report, that the report was simply a “review” of a “systemic issue” for which regulations should be adopted. Well, the Freedom of Information Hearing Officer just issued a decision agreeing with NHELD, and DENYING the OCA’s Motion to Dismiss, stating, “it is not apparent that all of the records responsive to the request are confidential” and, therefore, at this time, the Hearing Office could not conclude that the OCA had not violated the law in keeping the records secret. The Hearing Officer then stated that a hearing to further argue the matter would be held before making any final decision as to whether the OCA has violated the law. Stay tuned.
It's quite a story! To read about what the Child Advocate records reveal, how the first idea she had was to regulate and compel homeschoolers to comply or be forced to re-enroll their children in public school, and to see the records for yourself, CLICK HERE
NHELD has sent State Representative Patrick Biggins a Freedom of Information request to provide NHELD with all documents, emails, texts, and social media comments to or from him, regarding, among other things, “homeschooling”; any “working group”; any “bill”; and “legislation”; any “proposed bill”; or any “suggested bill or legislation”; from March 12, 2025 up to and including August 21, 2025. Why does NHELD seek this information? We seek it because we have had a variety of reports indicating that Rep. Biggins has made contradictory statements and taken contradictory actions about homeschooling issues during this time period. Some of the contradictory statements and actions were as follows: Leading up to, and after, the May 5, 2025 so-called “informational hearing” held jointly by the legislature’s Children’s Committee and the Education Committee, of which Rep. Biggins is a member, Rep. Biggins spoke individually by phone, and by email, to several individuals in the homeschool community. At time, Rep. Biggins listened to their comments and indicated that he simply wanted to engage in conversation about the possible need for homeschool regulation, that he had not decided what to do about it, and that no decisions had been made about it. For example, some quotes to homeschoolers, at various times, included: “ I am hoping to continue the conversation with the homeschool community. ” Yet, later he said, “I hope you will have a public hearing or another way of engagement and I would still participate but at this time I am no longer going to email ”. He also said, " I have really tried to engage with the people who emailed me. At this time I'm going to stop ”; and “ With that I will say that I do believe that there should be regulations .” The largest example, though, of Rep. Biggins’ contradictory actions followed the May 5, 2025 “informational hearing”. Rep. Biggins took it upon himself to establish a “ working group ” of invited participants to have an “ open discussion ” about the possibility of, or any need for, adoption of “regulations” about homeschooling, to see if there “ could be a consensus ” about the issue. At the first meeting of the “working group”, held on June 24, 2025, while the horrific story about the Waterbury public school child, who allegedly was being starved by his public school teacher stepmother for five full years while he was enrolled in the public school system, appeared to be the impetus for the call for homeschool regulation, the “ consensus” of the “working group ” at that first meeting was that the Waterbury abuse case had nothing to do with homeschooling . It was the consensus of the “working group”, at that time, that the State agencies were at fault for not doing more to halt the abuse when it was reported to them, such that the “working group” should call each of the Commissioners of the State agencies involved to appear before them to be questioned, in person, about the agency failures involving the Waterbury case. Rep. Biggins then agreed to contact the Commissioners and invite them to appear, one at a time, before the “working group” for that purpose. It also was decided that the first Commissioner to be called to appear before the “working group” was the DCF Commissioner, Jody Hill-Lilly. Even though the consensus at that first meeting specifically was to call each Commissioner to appear before the “working group” to be questioned, in person, about the agency failures, after several weeks of silence from Rep. Biggins, he finally emailed the “working group” invitees, only to unilaterally make a substantial change in the premise of the next meeting. This time, Rep. Biggins emailed the “working group” asking the invitees to provide him, before the next meeting, with a list of their questions to be asked of the DCF Commissioner, so that she would be able to “prepare” her answers to the questions in advance of the meeting. This was not what the consensus of the “working group” was at the first meeting, and was not the understanding of NHELD (or many others of the “working group”). Rep. Biggins did not indicate at the first “working group” meeting that the Commissioners would be given questions, in advance, to provide prepared answers at the meeting. The point was to be able to question the Commissioners in person. Not only did Rep. Biggins change the format to providing questions in advance, but also, directed that no one at the second meeting of the “working group”, scheduled for August 12, 2025, would be allowed to ask any questions of the Commissioners in person. After weeks of waiting to question the DCF Commissioner, the second meeting of the “working group” took place on August 12, 2025. The problem was that the DCF Commissioner did not show up . Instead, six DCF staff members showed up in her place. The staff then proceeded to read from the prepared answers they had, in written form, regarding the questions that were sent to DCF by Rep. Biggins. Rep. Biggins, also admitted that he had “edited” the questions from the “working group” members before sending them to DCF. He did not answer how many of the questions he edited when NHELD asked, claiming he did not know how many he had “edited”. The six DCF members then read from their prepared answers to the questions Rep. Biggins sent to them, none of which addressed DCF’s failures or any corrective measures. Rep. Biggins also ensured that the “working group” invitees were precluded from asking any questions of the DCF staff present. When NHELD, Rep. Dauphinais, and other invitees began asking Rep. Biggins questions about why the DCF Commissioner failed to show up, why he had changed the content of the meeting from its original intent to question the Commissioners in person about the failures of their agencies regarding the Waterbury case, when no one was allowed to ask any questions, at all, even of the DCF staff during the meeting, Rep. Biggins simply argued that he didn’t believe that questioning of the Commissioners during their appearance at the “working group” meetings was the original intent, and that he had no power to have the DCF Commissioner appear. When we continued to ask questions of Rep. Biggins, the DCF staff simply walked out, and the meeting, such as it was, ended, notwithstanding our continued questioning of Rep. Biggins. We do have documentation that, however, after the first “working group” meeting where it was agreed that the Commissioners would be questioned in person, that Rep. Biggins emailed the “working group” invitees, instead, to send to him, in advance, questions for the DCF Commissioner so she could prepare her answers before the meeting; and that he did speak with the Child Advocate about appearing at a “working group” meeting, when previously he had stated that he “had no juice” to talk directly to the Commissioners. For example: “ From: Rep. Biggins, Patrick Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 11:00 AM I just wanted to send out a reminder to please email me any questions you might have for the department if children and families, the office of the child advocate, and the state department of education.” “From: Rep. Biggins, Patrick Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 12:00 PM Unfortunately, we cannot expect our state agencies to answer question on the spot, so if you have any questions either your own or from the many people who you are connected with through your agencies please send those to me.” “ From: Rep. Biggins, Patrick Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 12:11 PM I was able to talk with the Child Advocate , and we have a Date for them to come in to talk to the working group. I wanted to make sure I shared that information with all of you as soon as possible hence this email.” In addition, during the evening only hours after the second “working group” meeting on August 12, 2025, we received word that the DCF Commissioner was “retiring ”, and the following morning, on August 13, 2025, the story broke in the media that the DCF Commissioner indeed was “retiring” to accept another job elsewhere. The third meeting of the “working group” was supposed to take place on August 19, 2025, with the appearance of the State’s Child Advocate, Christine Ghio. On August 15, 2025, however, Rep. Biggins suddenly announced that he was disbanding the “working group” in its entirety. Therefore, because the contradictory responses and actions of Rep. Biggins, NHELD believes that a Freedom of Information request is more than appropriate to determine exactly what happened, what was told to the Commissioners by whom, and exactly where the truth lies. Rest assured, that when we are provided responses to our FOIA request by Rep. Biggins, we will be sharing that information with the public. Stay tuned.
The Child Advocate has put out certain purported “statistics” in a feeble attempt to convince legislators that homeschoolers, and private schoolers, should be regulated. She claims that her figures show that the number of reports to DCF about homeschoolers shows the “need” for such regulation. The Child Advocate’s report, however, not only is deceptive, but it is also fatally flawed, such that any of her so-called “conclusions” are totally invalid. Here’s why in a nutshell. The Child Advocate is not a statistician. The Child Advocate’s figures are inaccurate and misleading. The Child Advocate did not conduct a scientifically accurate comparison. The Child Advocate did not establish a control group of non-homeschooled public schoolers. The Child Advocate did not isolate a single variable. The Child Advocate did not conduct a legitimate objective comparison. The Child Advocate took a random sample of a particular subset of homeschoolers between the ages of 7 and 11 without any explanation for that subset. The Child Advocate did not identify which, or how many, of the sample homeschool reports to DCF were substantiated or for what reason the families were reported to DCF. The Child Advocate made no comparative figures for reports made of any similar subset of public schooled students. The Child Advocate has not provided access to any of the raw data or records of the reports to DCF for anyone to verify. In short, the Child Advocate’s report is merely a subjective descriptive document containing random figures of no statistical value, such that her conclusions are illegitimate, fatally flawed, must be retracted, and are of no value to be used as a basis for any rational conclusions. The State’s Child Advocate needs to immediately RETRACT her misleading May 5, 2025 Report recommending regulation of homeschooling because it is flawed beyond belief such that no one can rely on its conclusions or recommendations, particularly not legislators. We went to several scientists and statisticians for analysis of the figures used by the Child Advocate for a professional opinion, and that opinion resulted in the above findings and more. NHELD and CHN contacted three different, highly qualified PhD. level statisticians and scientists, from three entirely separate universities, and asked them to review the validity of the OCA’s report. Separately, all three concluded the same thing: The OCA’s report is not a statistical analysis, at all. It is merely a descriptive report from which no valid inferences or conclusions can be made. Our statisticians indicate that to design a sound scientific analysis to identify the effect of homeschooling on DCF involvement, one would select two sample populations - one homeschooled and one not, and within those populations one would compare the incidence and severity of DCF reports of neglect or abuse. Instead of doing that, however, without explanation, the OCA merely took a random sampling of homeschoolers, did not establish any control group of non-homeschooled public schoolers, did not isolate a single variable, and did not conduct a legitimate comparison. The result is that the OCA’s report, statistically speaking, is meaningless, and cannot be used as a basis to support any conclusions or recommendations. What the OCA did is not analysis . It is merely a subjective descriptive document containing cherry picked numerical samples and random case studies. A true statistical analysis also contains no case samples. It also makes no inferences without a control group considering valid co-variants and objective results, so that any inferences and conclusions may be validly supported. That didn’t happen with the OCA’s report. In fact, many things are missing from her report. For example: No hypothesis was tested. No control group. No variables isolated. No comparison was made between DCF reports about homeschoolers versus public schoolers. No information of when the reports to DCF about homeschoolers were made. No information about the nature of the reports made - whether about emotional neglect, physical neglect, etc., thus, no comparison of apples to apples. No information about why the OCA selected a subset of children. No information about the rates of reporting in other states or when they were made. No access to DCF records are available to check the validity of the OCA’s figures. This was not a statistical analysis from which a legitimate inference, conclusion, or recommendation can be validly made. It was merely a descriptive report. Furthermore, a true statistical analysis does not contain any case studies. The only reason that the OCA included case studies thus was to appeal to the emotion of legislators. Yes, the case studies reveal horrific abuse and neglect, but none of them contained any evidence that the children involved were being homeschooled. In fact, they show the opposite - that each family, in each case, had been reported to DCF MULTIPLE times while ENROLLED in the public schools, long BEFORE any child was kept from attending . In addition, inexplicably, DCF, knowing of these reports, simply closed those cases once the child failed to return to the school , instead of more aggressively acting to prevent the neglect or abuse by keeping the case open and following through on prosecution . As a result, lives were lost by the ineptitude or ignorance of the State agencies. Either the OCA was acting intentionally to skew the results in the direction she wanted, or, she was negligently inept or ignorant as to how to conduct a valid statistical analysis, or both. Either way, one thing is glaringly certain: the OCA’s report is wholly invalid and the OCA’s conclusions and recommendations are grossly incorrect, invalid, and insupportable. No legislator can rely on that report, in any manner, as a basis for “regulation” of homeschoolers. Instead, legislators should reprimand the OCA for publishing a deceptive report, and demand a retraction and a corrective statement from the OCA. More importantly, the legislators should demand an investigation into the practices of the OCA and DCF as to why cases of abuse and neglect known to be occurring at times for years while children were enrolled in the public school were summarily CLOSED simply because the children were no longer attending the public school. It is outrageous that no one is investigating that abuse and neglect by a State agency, and, instead the OCA and the legislature are turning a blind eye on that to deflect the public’s attention away from the State agencies’ culpability only to focus it wrongly on homeschoolers. Do not be duped. Show the Child Advocate’s “report” to any of your own credentialed statistician and you are bound to obtain the same conclusion.  When will a full retraction be made?
NHELD has found out about the secret bill through Freedom of information Requests. Details are explained below. Key takeaways - The draft bill requires: homeschool and private school parents to show up at the public school, once every year, with their children in tow, to prove they are not being abused and that they are being educated in a manner the public school officials deem appropriate. Legislators set up a “working group” to lead local homeschool advocates down the garden path to accepting regulation, all the while keeping the draft bill hidden from them. All this is being done to distract attention away from the abject failures of State agencies who did nothing to save a Waterbury public school child from starvation and abuse, for twenty years, by his public school teacher stepmother. The details are unmistakable. See for yourself.
The background to this update can be seen in the previous articles on this page. The short version is that multiple State agencies failed a child who had been in the public school system for FIVE FULL YEARS and was KNOWN by all to be emaciated and starving, stealing food, and going through garbage to find anything to eat. For FIVE FULL YEARS they watched this, until his stepmother stopped letting him go to school. He remained locked in a small room in his home for TWENTY long years, until he finally rescued himself by setting fire to his house to escape. At one point, during his captivity, some children who had known him reported his disappearance to police, and someone told police they thought the child was being homeschooled. There is no evidence that he was. There is evidence that he remained enrolled in the public school but the stepmother stopped sending him there. That makes no difference to the legislators in our State, many of whom have been waiting for any excuse to jump in and regulate homeschooling in Connecticut. Apparently, this is their long awaited chance, and a fantastic way to distract the public from looking at the disastrous failures of our State agencies, who could have done so much more to save this child. This is NOT a homeschool issue . This is a physical abuse issue that the State knew about and ultimately failed to save the child. But the legislators cannot allow their precious State agencies to be blamed. No, they need a scapegoat. So they have announces that they are having an “informational hearing” on homeschooling, scheduled at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, at 2 p.m. on Monday, May 5, 2025. Who will be there? The State Commissioner of Education, the State Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, the State Child Advocate, and the Executive Director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents. Gratuitously, these legislators have said through the grapevine that representatives of three State homeschool groups also may attend. What “information: will be discussed? Of course, the many ways that homeschoolers are to blame, never are the State agencies to be blamed. Will they adopt a bill to regulate homeschoolers? The word is that, yes, they want to adopt an “emergency” bill which, among other things will REQUIRE ALL HOMESCHOOLERS TO ENROLL IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THEIR DISTRICT; REQUIRE ALL HOMESCHOOLERS TO FOLLOW THE MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS MUST ADHERE TO, EXCEPT FOR VACCINES; AND REQUIRE ALL HOMESCHOOLERS TO REPORT TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR TO SHOW WHAT THE CHILDREN HAVE LEARNED. And that’s just for starters! Make no mistake, your cherished freedom WILL BE GONE if this bill is adopted. You will NO LONGER HAVE ANY ESCAPE from public school oversight and control. YOU WILL HAVE TO COMPLY. You will NOT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW FROM ENROLLMENT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL. So wake up Connecticut parents - If you don’t want your freedom lost, you better show up at the Legislative Office Building Monday, May 5, 2025 at 2 pm in Hartford t o make your presence and your opinion known to each and every legislator you can find. Even if you cannot speak directly to your legislator, your mere presence there will let them know that parents will not tolerate what they are about to do.
The Waterbury Captivity Case is eerily similar to what happened in Connecticut in 2018, Only this time, the abused child didn’t die. The State agencies learned nothing from their abject failures in the Matthew Tirado case in 2018. They apparently corrected nothing , and no one in any of the State agencies was held accountable for their failures. The result - another child was abused, starved, and held in captivity for twenty years before he finally had to rescue himself - by setting fire to the house where he was held captive. NHELD wrote about that story in the previous post. What readers need to know is that the Waterbury case is a virtual repeat of another Connecticut case - one in which the abused child, Matthew Tirado, was not so lucky. He died. Here’s the sad saga of what happened to Tirado that we posted at the time, back in 2018. See if you can spot the similarities, and let's hope this time, agency officials will be held accountable before another child is harmed. May 8, 2018 HOMESCHOOLERS RESPOND TO CHILD ADVOCATE’S REQUEST FOR “DIALOGUE” The State’s Child Advocate initiated her call for regulation of homeschoolers as a direct result of Matthew Tirado’s death. We question WHY, when Matthew Tirado was NEVER withdrawn from public school. He was NEVER homeschooled . He was enrolled in the Hartford Public School District for his entire life, until the day he died. While his Mother did file a Notice of Intent to homeschool Matthew’s sister, two months before Matthew’s death, homeschooling had absolutely nothing to do with Matthew’s tragic life or death. While the Child Advocate stated in her first report on Matthew that she was “examin[ing] how Matthew, and then his sister, came to be hidden or invisible in the months prior to Matthew’s death,” the so-called “hiding” or “invisibility” of those children had absolutely nothing to do with homeschooling. In fact, these children were neither “hidden”, nor “invisible”. They were well known to the Hartford Public School District, and to the Department of Children and Families, for years before Matthew died, as victims of abuse and neglect. It was well known by the District, and by DCF, that Matthew’s Mother wasn’t sending him to school. In other words, he was truant, and for a very long time, and periodically over a number of years. That means that these agencies could have taken many actions about that truancy, for years before Matthew died, and could well have prevented his death. The School District could have held a due process hearing to override the decision of the parent, to order his evaluation and his placement in a residential school setting. The District didn’t do that. Why? Who knows? DCF could have done a “welfare check” at any time, especially after DCF knew that he hadn’t been seen in a year, his Mother’s phone was disconnected, and his sister told the school officials that his Mother hit her and her brother. That’s more than enough reason for DCF to call the police to have them go and check on the children, without a warrant. DCF also could have gotten a warrant to do a 96 hour hold on the children to have them evaluated; or, DCF could have filed a neglect petition with the court years before they finally did. DCF did none of those things. Why? Who knows? Instead, DCF asked the court to close the case because the Mother refused to come to court five times in a row. And the Court, in a 45 second hearing, agreed with DCF to close the case, instead of ordering the Mother’s arrest. Yet, the Child Advocate seeks to regulate homeschooling? This makes no sense. Why is the Child Advocate considering this to be a homeschooling issue? It certainly seems to be not for a rational reason. In her report, she says that “OCA’s investigative process encompassed extensive record reviews, interviews and correspondence with multiple stakeholders, including DCF personnel, Hartford Public Schools officials, the Judicial Branch, Oak Hill School, and the Office of the Chief Public Defender. It sounds as if she did a thorough and comprehensive review. She says she based her conclusions and recommendations to the legislature on that review. I’m sure she did. If, indeed the Child Advocate’s “investigation” of Matthew’s death led her to her conclusions, then the logical thing to ask is what exactly did she discover in her investigation? What is the evidence that she found? What records did she review? Whom did she interview? What correspondence did she have with interested persons or agencies? We wanted to know these things months ago, and we still want to know, especially now that she is asking the legislature to take action to change the law, and, curiously so, regarding homeschooling. Obviously, the logical thing to do, especially when there is such a disconnect between what actually happened to Matthew and her recommendations about homeschooling, is for everyone involved, the legislature and the public, to be able to review everything that the Child Advocate reviewed, so that logical conclusions can be made before anything is changed. We took that logical next step, and we asked the Child Advocate, in a Freedom of Information Request, to provide us with all of the documents that she reviewed as part of her investigation. That was on February 1, 2018. It is now May 8, 2018. The odd thing is - to date, she has not provided us with one single document. She has not provided the legislature with one single document, to date, either. Yet, she claims she wants to have a “dialogue” about her conclusions and recommendations. How can anyone expect to have a reasonable, rational dialogue or discussion of the need for regulation of homeschooling based on the death of Matthew Tirado, when the Child Advocate is the ONLY person in the entire state that has seen all of the documents and evidence upon which her recommendation is based? That is simply irrational and illogical, and beneath the status of the Office of the State’s Child Advocate. The Child Advocate may claim she cannot release the documents and evidence because they are “confidential”. That is simply not true. The Child is authorized by Conn. General Statute 46a-13n to release all documents initially deemed “confidential”, if she believes it is in the public interest. Well, she certainly has deemed her recommendations based on that evidence to be in the public interest. She has leaked certain of those documents to the media already. She has written op ed pieces in the newspaper, and has made the rounds of various broadcast media discussing her investigation and recommendations. Therefore, she has no real basis to claim that any of the documents and evidence underlying her recommendations must remain confidential. They are “in the public interest”. They are the basis upon which the Child Advocate wants the legislature to make changes in the law. Nothing could be more profoundly in the public interest than those documents and evidence upon which the law would be made. Because she has made this an issue in the public interest, because she has drawn her conclusions and based her recommendations on these documents and evidence, and because it is the reasonable, rational, fair, and the only logical and appropriate thing to do, we are calling on the Child Advocate to release all of the documents and evidence underlying her investigation to the public immediately. Only after those documents and evidence are released can anyone hope to have a rational dialogue about the need for regulation of any kind. While we always are open to providing information on homeschooling, and remain open to dialogue on these issues, there can, and will, be no dialogue before release of all of the documents and evidence the Child Advocate reviewed for her investigation. Only she is preventing any rational fact based dialogue by withholding those documents. It’s just this simple: Give us the documents, we’ll give you dialogue. We hope that the Child Advocate will see the wisdom, and necessity, in releasing all of the documents and evidence, immediately, so we can have a rational dialogue. We hope she will stop acting on emotion in pushing her narrative, and will assist the legislature and the public in seeing all of the evidence upon which she claims to be making her recommendations. Again, the sooner she gives us the documents, the sooner we can have a dialogue. But, make no mistake, the documents must be released first. Note: No documents were ever released to the public. No documents have been released in the Waterbury case either. Will we ever know the truth? Will no one in any of the State agencies ever be held accountable? Time will tell.
Inquiries have been made regarding NHELD’s assessment of the horrific incident of a child being held captive at his home and starved for twenty years in Waterbury, Connecticut, before setting fire to his home in order to escape. Our assessment, of course, is it is evil incarnate. We would like to make it clear, however, about what is known as fact, under oath, what is being said, not under oath, by those involved, and what questions remain. What we know as fact we can take from the arrest warrant affidavit submitted by police to the Waterbury court, which facts were taken directly from the statements of now released person known as male victim 1 (MV1). Among the most crucial facts are the following: 1. MV1 had to sneak out of his room at night at the age of three in order to try to get some food to eat from the kitchen; 2. His sneaking out of his room prompted him being locked inside his room at night from the age of three ; 3. He was enrolled in the Waterbury school system by age five , where he was “constantly hungry” and began to steal food from others and eat food from the garbage; 4. He remained in school until he was at least ten years old . What did the principal have to say about the situation when asked, not under oath, by the media? 1. He and his staff had concerns about the boy when he was in school; 2. He knew the child was extremely small and thin; 3. The boy told them he wasn’t allowed food at times at home; 4. Everyone really was concerned with this child since he was 5 years old; 5. You " knew something was wrong" . It was "grossly wrong" ; 6. Teachers would bring him food after they saw him stealing food and eating out of the garbage, saying he was constantly hungry ; 7. He “was told” at one point that the boy was homeschooled; 8. He “was told” that the student enrolled in Wolcott Public Schools; 9. By fifth grade “he never came back to school”. 10. He says “You don’t disappear off the face of the earth at 10 years old”; 11. He “hopes the student remembers the staff and how much they really loved him. Sorry we couldn’t do more.” Apparently, he did disappear off the face of the earth, for twenty years, when the alleged perpetrator’s apparent lies were believed by one and all in their wholly inept investigation and follow up, leaving the poor child to suffer for two decades. What did the Waterbury Police Chief have to say? 1. Officers investigated the stepmother years ago over treatment of the victim, in 2005 when he was in school, when other children told DCF they were worried about him; 2. The arrest warrant affidavit says two reports to police are in their files, from April of 2005, regarding the well being of MV1, noting that DCF had been sent to check on him and that staff at the school was “contacting different agencies to check on MV1”; 3. Police officers apparently reported that the house was clean, the victim said there was no cause for alarm, and officers believed he had a normal childhood. Clearly, the police failed to follow up on any kind of investigation, but simply believed, what now turns out to be an apparent lie, that there was nothing wrong with the child, despite the reports of him starving. What did DCF have to say? 1. They “looked extensively at current and historical databases” and were “ unable to locate any records of the family ” or of any others connected who indicated they made reports; 2. Now they want “anyone with information to contact police”; 3. They say they “will be as transparent as possible”. What did the Child Advocate have to say? 1. She “will be doing a preliminary review of the case”. What did the Governor have to say? 1. He “vows to get to the bottom of what happened”. What did the Chair of the legislature’s Children’s Committee have to say? 1. DCF has an “obligation to pursue” people at DCF that were working there and “figure out what was done and what could’ve been done differently”. Let’s look at each of those statements again - The evidence taken under oath indicates that: 1. MV1 was being starved at the age of three ; 2. at the age of five, he was enrolled in the public school , where everyone who knew him and knew he was constantly hungry, because they saw him steal food and eat from the garbage; 3. He was in school for at least five more years and he continued to be constantly hungry such that the teachers would bring him food. So for five years this child was starving right in front of the public school staff, and in front of other children, who all recognized he was effectively starving. The principal claims staff “loved” the boy, and he’s “sorry we couldn’t do more”. Really? Does love and effort stop at a knock on a door and a couple of calls to another agency when you are watching a child starve for five years? Couldn’t do more? Really? Of course they could have done more. They didn’t. They washed their hands of it, and the child starved for the next twenty years. The principal claims the school filed a complaint with DCF, or multiple complaints. DCF says they have no record of any complaints. Who is telling the truth? Anybody? Where is the evidence? Clearly, if complaints were made, DCF took no further action because the child continued to starve, again, for the next twenty years. The police say they have a record of two reports to them, in 2005, and apparently they saw nothing wrong. Their investigation appears to consist of visiting the house and believing what the alleged perpetrator told them, which we now know was not true. This is the kind of thorough investigation we can expect from local police? How many other perpetrators lie to police and get away with their crime? What about the Child Advocate? Where was she all of this time? How well does her agency work in overseeing DCF or the safety of children in this State, when all of these agencies failed this child? Does the Child Advocate ever follow up on how any of the agencies “investigate” alleged child abuse? Apparently, if she does, the protocols involved clearly failed. For five years, everyone in the school who had contact with the boy knew something was “grossly wrong” because he was starving, and although they may have contacted DCF, when DCF did nothing about it, why didn’t the school staff take any further action? Why didn’t they go to the DCF Commissioner? Or to the police? Or to the Child Advocate? Or to the Governor? Or to the Children’s Committee? Or to the media? The school could have complained that they made a report about a starving child and nobody helped the poor child. Apparently, they did nothing further, for five years and thereafter. Did the principal contact the Board of Education and ask for official assistance from the Board in following up to help this child? Did the principal or the Board contact its lawyer and ask what else could be done for this child? Did anyone from the school, or any of these agencies, do even a modicum of research of the existing law to see what else could be done? Just one quick glance at the law in existence in 2005 shows that a whole team could have tackled the case. Under General Statutes §17a-105a, at the time, that law stated, “within the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety a c hild abuse and neglect unit which, within available resources, shall (1) a t the request of the Commissioner of Children and Families or the head of the local law enforcement agency or such person’s designee, assist a multidisciplinary team established pursuant to section 17a-106a in the investigation of a report of child abuse or neglect…” Did anyone contact the State Police to seek or obtain team assistance? Did DCF perhaps think to go to a court for permission to temporarily remove the child for a 96 hour hold to determine if the child actually was starving, when everyone at the school knew he was starving? Clearly, they did not. After all, they claim they have absolutely no records, at all, about this child. What’s worse, they are not asking to receive any information about this child. They only are asking the public to report anything they know about this child to the police . So, the school knew f or at least five years that the child was starving , and while they may have reported it to DCF, they failed to follow up to get him the help that he needed. The child was in front of their eyes starving for five years - think about that. The police went to the house and also did nothing further. DCF may have gone to the house and did nothing further either, and kept no records about it even being reported. The school did nothing further, although being on the front lines, they could have done so very much more. Instead, all of these government agencies utterly failed this child to the point of near death. Why? These questions need to be answered, now, before any other child gets hurt. NHELD finds the failures of all of these agencies absolutely abhorrent and totally intolerable. We sincerely hope that the apparent and continued passing the blame along to someone else, which seems to be a pattern with these agencies, does not continue. Passing the buck from one entity to another is childish and sickening. All of these agencies need to be held accountable for their abject failures to save the horrendous physical abuse of this child for an astounding twenty years or more. Therefore, NHELD calls for the immediate appointment of a Special Inspector General to investigate all of the involved agencies as to their culpability in allowing this person to be held in captivity and starved for 20 years, and to hold all those responsible criminally and civilly liable for their abject failures to protect this child. In addition, NHELD calls for an immediate federal investigation into the agencies involved for the very same reasons, and to hold all those responsible criminally and civilly under federal law as applicable. Finally, NHELD calls for the immediate halting of all state and federal funding possible going to these agencies until all answers are obtained, persons are held fully accountable, and truly long lasting corrective action is taken within each agency. March 21, 2025.