A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

Jonathan’s casein-free diet, that Jonathan missed “8 full days of school,” that meals wereused as behavior management, that Jonathan had “extensive bruises all over his body,”that he was allowed to lie naked in his room, that he was prevented from leaving hisbedroom, and that the Anderson School attempted to suspend the Careys’ visitation rightsand restrict their communication with Jonathan through a “point-of-contact” person at theSchool. He requested that CQC explain what was done on the investigation and provideclarification on the scope of its review so “we [the Careys] could possibly understand itbetter…. If these questions are outside of the investigation, please let us know. If not,we would like to know that this has been fully reviewed.” Mr. Carey also asked thatCQC further investigate his concerns.CQC acknowledged this complaint in a June 2, 2005 letter to Michael Careysigned by Director Keegan. Keegan informed Michael Carey that he would be reviewingthe investigation conducted by Bowser. CQC General Counsel Boehlert explained to theInspector General’s Office that CQC decided to re-examine the case because MichaelCarey “was unhappy and he wrote to us and he asked us to review it again.” In the daysfollowing this letter, Keegan and Michael Carey spoke on the telephone andcommunicated via facsimile in an effort to clarify CQC’s role in the investigation.On June 9, 2005, Keegan wrote a letter attempting to explain CQC’ s role, theinvestigation, and the findings. Director Keegan reiterated in this letter that CQCconducted “two separate investigations” into the Careys’ complaints. The first, a childabuse investigation on behalf of the State Central Register, was unfounded “based in parton the results of Jonathan’s October 23 medical examination at [a local hospital], whichrevealed that [Jonathan] had no medical problems.” CQC reiterated that the criteria used178