A protective order gives the man’s lawyers access to disputed agency records as they fight the state’s effort to dismiss his claim.
WATERBURY, Conn. — Lawyers for a man who authorities say endured decades of captivity in his Waterbury home will be allowed to review confidential Department of Children and Families records as they pursue a claim alleging the state failed to protect him when he was a child.
The agreement marks an important step in a separate legal dispute surrounding the case of the man, who identifies himself publicly as “S.” His lawyers have argued that an internal DCF review could help explain the agency’s contacts with his family and its response to reports about his welfare. The state had maintained that the material was protected by confidentiality requirements. Claims Commissioner Robert F. Shea Jr. granted a protective order Sept. 21 putting an agreement between the parties into effect.
Under the arrangement, the records will remain confidential. S and his legal team may review the material, but it will not be released publicly. The documents are expected to help his attorneys respond to the state’s effort to dismiss his claim and determine what steps to take before the Claims Commissioner, whose office handles certain claims seeking monetary damages from Connecticut or permission to sue the state.
S’s conservator filed a claim against the state earlier this year, alleging DCF failed to protect him despite receiving reports about his well-being when he was a child. The claim seeks permission to pursue litigation against the state over alleged personal injuries and a breach of its duty of care. Permission from the Claims Commissioner is generally required before such a lawsuit against Connecticut can proceed because of the state’s sovereign immunity.
The state has argued that the claim was filed too late. Assistant Attorney General John Tucker previously told the Claims Commissioner that DCF’s last contact with S and his family was in 2005 and that the legal time limit for bringing a claim expired years ago. S’s attorneys dispute that the claim should be barred, arguing that he could not reasonably have pursued it while, according to police allegations, he remained confined in the home.
The disputed DCF material could be important to that argument. The agency has said it investigated six reports concerning S’s well-being between 1996 and 2005. DCF has previously said those investigations included announced and unannounced visits to the home, assessments of its conditions and whether food was available, and contact with medical and school personnel. The agency has said the information available at the time did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate allegations or remove the child from the home.
S’s attorneys have sought additional records to examine the extent and timing of DCF’s involvement. Attorney Joel Faxon has argued that the internal review could shed light on what agency employees knew, what actions they took and whether DCF had contacts with the family that could affect the state’s argument about when the legal filing period began. Some records previously provided to S’s legal team were heavily redacted.
The underlying criminal case remains separate from the claim against the state. Police allege Kimberly Sullivan confined her stepson in a locked room and subjected him to abuse for more than two decades. Sullivan has pleaded not guilty to charges that include kidnapping and assault. Her attorney has rejected the allegation that she held S captive and has said the defense intends to contest the state’s evidence at trial.
Authorities discovered S after a fire at the Waterbury home on Feb. 17, 2025. Police said he told first responders that he had intentionally started the fire as a way to escape. Investigators said he was 32 years old and weighed about 68 pounds when he was removed from the home. The case prompted renewed scrutiny of earlier contacts between the family, S’s school and Connecticut’s child welfare system.
The confidential records agreement does not resolve S’s claim against Connecticut or determine whether DCF is legally responsible for his alleged injuries. The Claims Commissioner must still decide whether the office has jurisdiction and whether the claim may proceed. Sullivan’s criminal charges also remain pending, with no verdict reached on the allegations against her.
Author note: Last updated Sept. 25, 2026.