A new database created by Connecticut’s child welfare agency provides a closer look at the lives of children in the state who suffered serious harm from suspected abuse or neglect.
The Connecticut Department of Children and Families recently released a comprehensive accounting of children who died or were seriously injured between January 2025 and May 2026.
The records, compiled for the first time under a new state law, provide new insight into the contributing factors in each case.
They also show DCF's involvement with the families of many children who were in danger. The information, obtained by Connecticut Public through a Freedom of Information request, shows 62 children died and 17 nearly died during the period the data describes. DCF received previous reports of suspected abuse or neglect regarding more than a third of the children or someone else in the same household.
In recent months, the agency has worked to improve child safety amid public scrutiny over its handling of several cases.
But some policymakers feel the changes to date are only the first steps toward needed reform.
Connecticut resident and former foster parent Kate Dormont said DCF must provide greater transparency and communicate clearly with the public.
“There is nothing that builds distrust more than hearing that systems are failing, getting acknowledgement that systems aren't working and then not understanding at all what is being done about it,” Dormont said. “It just continues to sow distrust.”
Ken Mysogland, the agency's chief administrator of external affairs, said the department regularly shares information with legislators and the Statewide Advisory Council, which oversees DCF.
“The perception is we have all this [information] and we don’t tell people about it,” Mysogland said. “We certainly feel the contrary.”
Children at risk from substance exposure
DCF received reports alleging abuse or neglect in the households of 29 of the children described in the new records — 20 of whom died, and nine who suffered near fatalities.
In some cases, DCF had numerous contacts with the children's families. One 16-year-old boy’s history included 62 accepted reports prior to his death from an oxycodone overdose in October 2025, the records show. DCF had substantiated 17 of the reports, which included allegations of neglect and physical, sexual and emotional abuse.
DCF previously developed procedures for addressing suspected fentanyl use by parents. Nevertheless, exposure to drugs was a recurring factor.
Of the children DCF had prior contact with, six suffered near fatalities from substance exposure or ingestion. Most were younger than 5 at the time. Among them was a 4-year-old girl who ingested THC gummies. The records show DCF had previously accepted 15 reports about the household and substantiated three.
Mysogland said DCF treats substance exposure as a safety risk, and factors it into assessments of parenting ability.
One expert stressed other state agencies play an important role in these cases. Kelley Fong, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine, cautioned against looking at cases solely through the lens of DCF. Understanding what went wrong can require looking at other systems families encountered, including healthcare, substance use treatment, homelessness services and public assistance, she said.
"Case records are one type of document," said Fong, who has studied Connecticut's child welfare system. “I think families' experiences, children's experiences, are also really important as well.”
DCF involvement before child deaths isn’t new
The push for more public transparency about safety practices became more urgent following the February 2022 death of 1-year-old Kaylee S. She died from ingesting fentanyl and xylazine, an animal tranquilizer. DCF had an open case about the child at the time.
Less than a year later, 2-year-old Liam Rivera’s body was found in a Stamford park. The toddler’s death was later ruled a homicide. A review by the state's Office of the Child Advocate found DCF had prolonged contact with Liam's family and catastrophically failed to protect him.
“It is frustrating to continuously see DCF in the headlines when things go so dramatically wrong,” said Emily Knox, research and policy director at Connecticut Voices for Children. “There’s just an erosion of public trust.”
DCF has since created a position focused on safety practices. State lawmakers passed an extensive 2024 law that expanded public disclosure requirements and codified recommendations from the Child Advocate's investigation.
Nevertheless, another wave of public scrutiny came last fall after New Britain police found the remains of 11-year-old Jacqueline “Mimi” Torres Garcia in a storage bin. As DCF’s past involvement with her family came to light, lawmakers again called for better oversight.
Sen. Ceci Maher, co-chair of the legislature's Committee on Children, said it's good that DCF has identified problems, but accountability can be obscured by the agency’s jargon and lengthy explanations.
“There is a lack of clarity and a lack of responsibility,” Maher said. “You need to own the problem and say how you’re going to fix it.”
What can the public access?
Under a new state law adopted in 2024, DCF must release certain information about children who die or nearly die due to abuse or neglect when someone requests it.
Disclosures must include the cause and circumstances, as well as the child’s age and gender, and descriptions and findings of previous reports or investigations relevant to the event. DCF must also describe services provided and actions taken by the department on behalf of the child.
Connecticut Public requested information disclosable under the law in March. After three months without receiving the records, reporters notified DCF they were preparing to publish a story and requested an explanation for the delay.
DCF then provided a file that did not include near fatalities and indicated only one child who died had prior DCF involvement. It then provided an updated file in July, about four months after the initial request.
“Prior to your request, no outside entity had asked us for a comprehensive listing of the data,” Mysogland wrote in an email. “Producing a report of sensitive and confidential information going back almost 18 months takes an extensive period of time.”
Certain information included in the first file was also removed from the second file because the law didn’t provide for disclosure of those details, he said.
DCF isn't required to disclose when prior reports were made, whether a case was open at the time of the incident or when the agency last contacted the child or guardians. Agency records don’t show whether prior reports concerned the child who was harmed or another member of the household.
That makes the numbers difficult to interpret on their own, said Knox. And without knowing the timing and nature of each interaction, the records can't show whether risk was escalating over time.
“It's challenging to really dig into this in a way that feels satisfying,” Knox said.
Mysogland said the agency released the most detailed information permitted under the law. Lack of detail in case history can lead to inaccurate assumptions about how involved the agency was with a child before a critical incident, he said.
“It could have been involvement 10 years ago, or it could have been involvement 10 days ago,” he said. “We need to work on clarifying the data as best we can.”
Maher said the handling of the request frustrated her given the purpose of the 2024 disclosure law.
“The reason we put it in place was so that this information would be available also to parents and to families,” she said. “So, I'm concerned.”
If the legislature wants more information publicly available, Mysogland said it has the power to enhance the law.
“We know our data, and we know the limits on how far we can go to disclose specific information,” he said. “I would love, personally, to be able to say more because I think it would put such a greater context to our work.”
How DCF case practice is measured
Information released to the public also does not convey what the agency learned from studying past case practice.
DCF uses the Safe Systems Improvement Tool, or SSIT, to analyze critical incidents and identify patterns and areas for improvement.
The tool was developed in collaboration with the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, the University of Chicago’s Chapin Hall Center and a nonprofit called The Praed Foundation.
The process begins by identifying opportunities for improvement within a case. Reviewers then score the incident for 28 factors under one of four areas: family, professional, team and environment.
DCF staff use the SSIT process to aggregate information and identify trends. Data is also entered into a national database.
SSIT analysis of critical incidents in 2022 revealed suicide was becoming a trend. Unable to get appropriate care at hospitals or congregate care settings, kids were committing suicide at home.
Inadequate staffing levels were also contributing to a trend of worker-related stress and fatigue, the review found.
DCF also conducts in-depth Special Qualitative Reviews of fatality or near fatality cases with prior DCF involvement in the last 12 months. Those evaluate service delivery, compliance with policies and best practices and systemic factors.
Dormont, the former foster parent, previously interned with the Office of the Child Advocate. Dormont said her experience observing child fatality reviews convinced her that people within the system want to identify problems. But that is just the first step, she said.
“We seem to be OK at eventually acknowledging there are issues, but I see less about how we're resolving them,” Dormont said.
Melanie Kmetz, a program director in DCF's Bureau of Quality Improvement, said the agency does track improvement activities.
“We study it, we see if it’s working,” she said. “We’ll interview staff to see if it’s giving the benefit and value for them as well.”
A recent death raises familiar concerns
Earlier this year, Child Advocate Christina Ghio’s office completed a preliminary review of a child who committed suicide within an hour of a DCF staff visit. Agency records noted the child had said they felt unsafe and requested to be removed during the visit, according to Ghio.
“That did not happen. That child was left in the situation,” Ghio said. “Despite a very lengthy DCF history, despite the fact that the family did not have stable housing and had moved in and out of Connecticut, and despite the fact that the children were not enrolled in school.”
The facts of that case, coupled with the ongoing poor quality of case practice, alarmed the child advocate’s office, Ghio said, prompting an April letter to DCF Commissioner Susan Hamilton.
"It’s not very common for children to say 'I want to come into DCF care,'" Ghio said. "It’s something that should be listened to."
The description appears to align with a death in the records released to Connecticut Public. A 15-year-old girl committed suicide on April 24, 2026. DCF had received 23 abuse and neglect reports prior to the girl's death, and had substantiated two.
The DCF record notes a history of physical and educational neglect, homelessness, poor supervision and allegations of physical abuse, along with housing and child mental health services being provided. Neither Ghio nor DCF would comment on whether it is the same case.
In a July 29 response letter, Hamilton outlined recent changes, including continued worker safety efforts, training and supervision.
The department is recruiting and keeping frontline workers, Hamilton wrote. Many case aide positions transitioned to full-time, and the department is searching for funding sources for further increases, she wrote. New workers are also no longer allowed to work remotely for at least six months, according to the letter.
All supervision must now be in-person, too. Mysogland said the department will track the impact. To assist with supervision, Hamilton said monthly reports on qualitative reviews are sent to area offices.
Ghio called the measures good first steps, but said concern about the quality of DCF's case practice will remain until she sees a tangible impact.
Fong said new requirements should also be evaluated to determine whether they actually improve children's well-being and whether workers have the capacity to carry them out.
"We're making a lot of assumptions that these things are going to be meaningfully improving child well-being," Fong said. "Also that caseworkers can accommodate requests without additional hiring, staffing, pay, time."
As for accountability to the public, Hamilton confirmed the department is still developing a data dashboard, but more work is needed to determine which information would be most useful.
"From my perspective, that would include outcome data that we already collect," Hamilton said in her letter. "Areas such as safely preventing removals from home, reducing length of time to permanency, reducing repeat maltreatment, increasing timely access to services and reducing re-entry into care."
Maher similarly said DCF's response is a good first step that speaks to the agency's goals and efforts to support the system and ensure children's safety.
"But my experience to date with DCF is that it tends to use a tremendous amount of language to respond to issues," Maher said, "rather than a clearer and more direct way of sharing information."
Ghio, the state's child advocate, said when a child is critically harmed, the public must have enough information about what happened to identify gaps in the child protection system.
"Transparency is vital to making sure that agencies are working appropriately," she said.
