The Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) does not have to turn over underlying records that were used to write a May 2025 review on children who were withdrawn from public schools under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to a recent ruling from the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC).
According to the FOIC, not only were the requested records exempt from disclosure because they were compiled in relation to a child abuse investigation, but responding to the request would require the OCA to make determinations about which records were responsive, which is tantamount to conducting research and is not required of public agencies under FOIA.
At the center of the case was a records request submitted by Deborah Stevenson, an attorney and founder of the National Home Education Defense League, seeking underlying records related to several OCA reports related to children who had been withdrawn from public schools and who were victims of domestic abuse, including a May 2025 review of children withdrawn from public schooling and whose families were involved with the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and a 2018 supplemental report examining the state’s safety net for children for are homeschooled following the 2017 death of Matthew Tirado.
Stevenson not only requested underlying records used to compile the reports, but the names of individuals and agencies who contributed to them, statistical data tied to the Tirado case, and records documenting actions the OCA took “to determine whether the 87,397 students who the Connecticut Department of Education recently reported are chronically absent or truant from the public schools are actually safe, or whether their educational, physical, mental status and/or whereabouts is known.”
Like DCF investigation records, documents OCA officials request as part of carrying out the office’s duties are generally exempt from FOIA disclosure. Per state statute, “all information obtained or generated by the office in the course of an investigation and all confidential records obtained by the Child Advocate or a designee shall be confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information act or otherwise,” though the OCA does have discretion to disclose records they determine are in the public interest or to perform the duties of the office, including reviewing how state agency services serve children.
In its response to Stevenson’s request, OCA officials noted that most records produced by the office are exempt from FOIA disclosure and that the office needed additional time to determine whether any records would be disclosable “due to the broad nature of your request, the limited staff available for such a task, and the current workload of our staff.”
OCA later denied the request in its entirety, finding that there were no responsive records subject to disclosure.
The FOIC agreed that all records that would be responsive to several items in Stevenson’s request, including underlying records from the 2025 and 2018 reports and the request for records documenting determinations about chronically absent students, were exempt from FOIA disclosure. They also found that OCA did not maintain responsive documents for the other portions of Stevenson’s requests.
However, the FOIC also found that Stevenson’s request would require OCA to “exercise discretion to determine which records fall within the scope of the request” and that this amounted to requiring the office to conduct research, which public agencies are not required to do under FOIA.
The finding that FOIA does not compel agencies to conduct research in response to FOIA requests dates back to an appellate court ruling from 2000, which found that a request is asking an agency to conduct research if it is overly broad and does not identify the records being sought, requiring agencies to use discretion or conduct analysis about what records are responsive to a request.
The FOIC found Stevenson’s request required OFA to “study the reports referenced therein, and to make a determination (i.e., to analyze and exercise discretion) as to whether any records that they maintain, or information contained therein, “underlies,” “serves as a basis for” or supports a “finding” or “conclusion” in each report.”
As a result, the FOIC dismissed Stevenson’s complaint.
The request, initially filed in May 2025, comes amid an ongoing conflict between homeschooling advocates and legislators and state agencies who have called the state’s lack of oversight over children withdrawn from public schools into question after multiple child fatality cases involving children whose families were involved with DCF and who had withdrawn their children from public schooling.
Prior to the most recent legislative session, Connecticut was the only state in New England that did not require any kind of annual check-in with state agencies for children who are homeschooled. Multiple state officials, including the OCA in its May 2025 report, have raised concerns that this enables parents and others engaged in child abuse to withdraw children from school under false pretense.
OCA also proposed regulations to strengthen state oversight of homeschooled children in March 2025. During the most recent legislative session, legislators passed a controversial bill that requires parents who withdraw their children from public schools for the purposes of homeschooling to physically appear once a year to sign paperwork stating they are homeschooling their children. Connecticut is the first state in the nation to impose such a requirement.
It also prevents parents from withdrawing their children to be homeschooled if they have involvement with the Department of Children and Families.
The bill was fiercely opposed by homeschool advocates, who argued it infringes on their parental rights and ability to educate their children as they see fit.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
