Would Connecticut indemnify a court monitor helping reform its juvenile training school?

Plain-English summary

In 2004, Connecticut asked whether it had to indemnify the Juan F. class action court monitor for helping implement reforms at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School. The AG read the revised court monitoring order as requiring the state to defend and indemnify the monitor for actions taken in performing his ordered duties. Because some children at the school belonged to the Juan F. class, the described work appeared related enough to those duties. The conclusion depended on that connection.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

State officials at the time

The opinion treated the court order's indemnity clause as controlling. The state's duty applied when the monitor acted in the performance of duties defined by that order and related orders.

Court monitor and child welfare administrators at the time

The monitor's task force role included oversight and decisions with substantial effects on the safety and welfare of children in the class. The described training-school work appeared to fit that role, subject to the condition that it actually served his ordered duties.

Common questions

Q: Was every activity by the court monitor covered by state indemnification?
A: No. The opinion tied defense and indemnity to work performed within duties defined by the court orders.

Q: Did work at the juvenile training school meet that condition?
A: The AG said the work as described appeared sufficiently related to the monitor's duties because some children there were members of the protected class.

Q: What was the source of the state's duty?
A: The revised federal court monitoring order required the state to defend and indemnify the monitor and staff, to the same extent as state employees, for litigation involving performance of their duties.

Background and statutory framework

A federal district court's Revised Monitoring Order had established a transition task force including the court monitor and state officials. It gave the monitor responsibilities involving the safety and welfare of the Juan F. class. The AG applied the order's indemnification wording to the specific services described by the state.

Citations and references

Authority discussed: Revised Monitoring Order, Section VIII.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2004-formal-opinions/honorable-marc-ryan-secretary-office-of-policy-and-management-2004016-formal-opinion-attorney-genera

Original opinion text

Honorable Marc Ryan, Secretary, Office of Policy and Management, 2004-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

September 23, 2004

Honorable Marc Ryan

Secretary

Office of Policy and Management

410 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Secretary Ryan:

This letter responds to your August 3, 2004 amended request for a formal opinion as to whether Dr. D. Ray Sirry, the Juan F. Court Monitor, would be entitled to indemnification from the State in connection with services he has agreed to provide to the State to assist it in implementing reforms at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS). We conclude that under the circumstances as you describe them and pursuant to the Revised Monitoring Order, as long as Dr. Sirry's activities relate to "the performance of his duties" in the Juan F. class action, the State is required to indemnify him.

We understand the relevant facts to be as follows: On December 31, 2003, the District Court entered the Revised Monitoring Order, in accordance with a Stipulation of the parties. Pursuant to the Revised Monitoring Order, the Court established a three person Transition Task Force (Task Force) comprised of Dr. Sirry, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management (OPM). The Task Force "shall assume all decision-making authority having a substantial impact on the safety and welfare of members of the Juan F. class, which authority is otherwise reserved solely to the Commissioner of DCF . . . ." Stipulation, ¶ 2.

According to your letter, the State has asked Dr. Sirry to assist it in "implementing important reforms at the CJTS" by "sharing his vast experience and knowledge with the State to better the conditions at the training school." You state that Dr. Sirry's services at CJTS "would be related to his present duties as the Juan F. court monitor and as a member of the Transition Task Force under the recent court order." CJTS provides services to members of the Juan F. class who are in the custody of DCF as a result of being abused, neglected or abandoned and are therefore subject to the consent decree and Revised Monitoring Order. In particular, approximately ten percent of the CJTS client population are members of the Juan F. class1 and it is likely that, in the future, members of the Juan F. class may also be committed to CJTS.

The Revised Monitoring Order governs the issue of indemnification and provides that: "The State of Connecticut shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless, to the same extent as state employees, the DCF Court Monitor and his staff in any litigation or proceeding involving the Court Monitor and his staff in the performance of their duties." Section VIII (emphasis added). Section IA of the Revised Monitoring Order provides that:

The DCF Court Monitor shall assume any and all duties set forth in this Order, the Order of July 29, 2003, the October 7, 2003 Order, and the additional Stipulation ordered by the Court dated October 7, 2003 concerning the federal Child and Family Services Review (collectively "the Orders"), and any subsequent orders entered by the court.
In addition, Section II, titled "Duties and Responsibilities of the DCF Court Monitor," provides in relevant part that:

The DCF Court Monitor shall:

A. Monitor implementation and compliance with the provisions of the Orders and Exit Plan.

B. Perform the duties specified in the October 7, 2003 Order and subsequent orders. . . .
Accordingly, pursuant to the Revised Monitoring Order, the State is required to indemnify Dr. Sirry for any actions taken "in the performance of his duties" as those duties have been defined under the Revised Monitoring Order and other relevant court orders. These duties include oversight and decision-making authority, as a member of the Task Force, with respect to matters "having a substantial impact on the safety and welfare of members of the Juan F. class." Stipulation ¶ 2. Because a portion of the CJTS population is comprised of members of the Juan F. class, Dr. Sirry's responsibilities at and concerning that facility, as you describe them, appear to be sufficiently related to his duties as the Juan F. Court Monitor and as a Task Force member that those duties would be considered to be in the "performance of [his] duties" under the Revised Monitoring Order. Accordingly, Dr. Sirry's services at the CJTS, assuming they are taken in the performance of his court ordered duties, would be subject to indemnification and defense from the State.

I trust that this letter responds to your question.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

1 The plaintiffs in the Juan F class are composed of (1) all children who are, or will be in the future, in the care, custody or supervision of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF), as a result of being abused, neglected or abandoned or being found at risk of such maltreatment; and (2) all children about whom DCF knows, or should know, are now, or will be abused, neglected or abandoned, or who are, or will be at risk of such maltreatment.