The agency investigated six reports involving the alleged victim from 1996 through 2005 but did not remove him from the home.
WATERBURY, Conn. — A confidential Department of Children and Families review could provide the clearest account yet of how Connecticut child welfare officials handled repeated concerns about a Waterbury boy who authorities say later spent more than two decades confined in his family’s home.
The man, now known publicly as “S,” and his lawyers have gained confidential access to the internal DCF material under a protective order approved by Claims Commissioner Robert F. Shea Jr. The agreement comes as S pursues a claim alleging the state failed to protect him. It also puts renewed attention on six reports DCF says it investigated between 1996 and 2005, years before S emerged from the home in February 2025.
DCF has previously said its involvement included announced and unannounced visits to the family home. Agency workers assessed conditions in the residence, including whether food was available, and an investigator contacted S’s pediatrician. The agency also communicated with school and medical personnel while examining concerns about his small stature and food-seeking behavior. DCF has said the evidence available under the standards in place at the time was insufficient to substantiate the allegations or remove him from the home.
The internal review has become central to S’s effort to determine more precisely what happened during those years. His attorneys contend that the records could show what DCF employees observed, how they assessed reports concerning the child and whether the agency had additional involvement with the family. Lawyers for S had argued that they needed the material to respond fully to the state’s attempt to have his claim dismissed.
The records will not become public under the agreement. S and his legal team will receive confidential access, allowing them to use the material as they determine how to proceed before the Claims Commissioner. The protective order reflects a compromise after the state maintained that DCF records were subject to confidentiality protections and S’s attorneys argued that access was necessary to litigate his claim fairly.
The dispute is especially important because the state contends S waited too long to file his claim. The Attorney General’s Office has argued that DCF’s final contact with the family occurred in 2005 and that the applicable filing period expired long before the claim was submitted in 2026. S’s attorneys argue that applying that deadline in the way the state proposes would have required him to pursue a legal claim while he was allegedly still confined in the home.
The Claims Commissioner has not resolved that dispute. The office must determine whether it has jurisdiction and whether S’s claim can move forward. The proceedings before the commissioner are a required step in many efforts to seek damages from Connecticut because state law generally protects the state from lawsuits unless immunity is waived through an established process.
The allegations that brought renewed attention to DCF’s earlier involvement surfaced after firefighters responded to a blaze at the Waterbury home on Feb. 17, 2025. Police said S, then 32, told first responders he had started the fire to escape. Authorities said he weighed about 68 pounds when he was rescued. Investigators allege his stepmother, Kimberly Sullivan, kept him confined in a room that could be locked from the outside and subjected him to prolonged abuse.
Sullivan has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges that include kidnapping and assault. Her defense attorney has denied that she held S hostage and has said the defense plans to present its account to a jury. The criminal prosecution is separate from S’s claim involving DCF, and the agreement to provide the agency records does not establish Sullivan’s guilt or determine whether the state bears civil responsibility.
The internal review is significant because it may offer more detail than DCF’s public explanation of its earlier involvement. The agency has acknowledged investigating six reports over roughly nine years while maintaining that workers did not have sufficient evidence under the standards then in place to remove S from the household. Because the newly accessible material remains confidential, its findings cannot yet be independently evaluated by the public.
For now, the protective order moves the records dispute forward without resolving the larger questions surrounding the case. S’s lawyers can examine the DCF review as they respond to the state’s dismissal request, while the Claims Commissioner still must decide whether the claim can proceed. Sullivan’s criminal case also remains pending.
Author note: Last updated Sept. 25, 2026.