A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

eport does not address whether Jonathan’s treatment at the Anderson School caused himserious emotional injury or put him at risk of such injury. Neither does the report addressany of the other allegations that were included in the original complaint received by CQCfrom the State Central Register regarding Jonathan’s care other than the withholding ofmeals. CQC’s determination that there was no “breach of duty” by the Anderson Schoolis based on a determination that Jonathan’s food was not entirely withheld or withheld aspunishment, and does not address any other potential errors or improprieties related toJonathan’s treatment. Finally, the report inaccurately asserts that Jonathan wasconsistently provided substitute foods when his regular meals were denied or “refused.”Allegations of abuse not addressed in reportThe Careys made a number of allegations of abuse that were not addressed byCQC’s child abuse investigation. CQC’s case summary exclusively addressed thewithholding of meals and related behavior plans. The initial allegation that the StateCentral Register transmitted to CQC, as well as the description of the Careys’ complaintsby the hospital nurse to CQC, were much broader than simply the charge of withholdingof food or meals. The nurse noted bruising to his back, and said that Jonathan hadbecome increasingly violent. Although not an allegation made by the Careys, the nursealso transmitted an allegation of potential sexual abuse. These items were mentioned inthe miscellaneous section of the child abuse report, just below the primary allegation. InCQC’s initial conversation with the hospital nurse who reported the allegation, the nurseagain depicted problems beyond the withholding of meals. CQC’s progress notes reflectthat the nurse reported that, in addition to “possible malnutrition,” Jonathan’s familycomplained of abuse and neglect. The notes also indicated that the parents reported that167