A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

separate reports. Taconic’s was in direct response to the allegations; OMRDD’s was theresult of a more general “survey” of the school. Both were critical of the school’streatment of Jonathan and identified deficiencies at the school related to the developmentand implementation of treatment plans. The State Education Department closed itsinvestigation, citing a lack of cooperation from the Careys. The Careys disputed thisclaim, and the Education Department reopened the case following inquires from theInspector General. The Dutchess County District Attorney, who worked with the StatePolice, did not bring criminal charges in the case.The Careys were dissatisfied with the thoroughness and findings of the variousinvestigations, and subsequent events, and alleged to the Inspector General the followingclaims:1. The findings of the OMRDD investigation were “watered down” and“purposefully minimized the scope of what really happened to ourson.”2. The CQC investigation was superficial and included only one site visitto the Anderson School.3. CQC recommended to the State Central Register of Child Abuse andMaltreatment that the case be unfounded (or unsubstantiated) despitethe Taconic regional office’s finding of abuse.4. Neither OMRDD nor CQC ever conducted a face-to-face interviewwith the Careys.5. Although aware of the existence of a logbook, which contained whatthe Careys described as strong evidence of the abuse of Jonathan, CQCnever obtained and reviewed it until years later, and then only after theCareys persistently demanded that CQC do so.6. Neither CQC nor OMRDD recommended the matter to a lawenforcement entity for prosecution as required by Mental HygieneLaw and despite findings of abuse by the Taconic regional office.7. Both OMRDD and CQC sought to “cover-up” findings that Jonathanwas abused.8. Records pertinent to their son’s case were withheld from the Careys.26