A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

In June 2005, the Dutchess County District Attorney’s office reviewed the casefor potential criminal charges. A New York State Police investigator assigned to a localchild abuse task force investigated the matter under the supervision of the assistantdistrict attorney assigned to the case.The district attorney did not pursue a criminalprosecution and closed the case in April 2006.In October 2005, the New York State Education Department’s Office ofProfessional Discipline opened an investigation regarding a nurse at the school who wasinvolved in Jonathan’s care. In March 2006, the Education Department closed itsinvestigation, citing a lack of cooperation from the Careys. The Careys disputed thisclaim and at the behest of the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Disciplinesubsequently re-opened the case. It is still pending as of the issuance of this report.Although some of the investigations proceeded simultaneously, each agencyacted independently in gathering evidence, conducting interviews, and reachingconclusions.COMPLAINT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERALThe Careys were dissatisfied with the thoroughness and findings of the variousinvestigations, and claimed that the agencies were engaged in a deliberate and perhapscollaborative attempt to minimize the child abuse incident at the Anderson School. TheCareys further alleged that an incorrect application of the state’s definition of child abuseby CQC has resulted in the agency’s failure to prevent ongoing abuse and neglect atfacilities for the disabled throughout the state.5