Articles Posted in Child Abuse

|

I often get asked questions about the Division of Child Protection & Permanency, more commonly referred to by its old name, DYFS. Specializing in child abuse and welfare defense, it is not uncommon for both individuals and family law attorneys who do not specialize in this area to have questions when the Division becomes involved with a family. One frequent question is whether it is necessary to retain an attorney if the Division has not actually taken parents to court, but rather is involved with the family on what I would refer to as an administrative level.

To answer this question, it is important to understand the role of the Division of Child Protection & Permanency on at least a basic level. The Division is responsible for investigating calls alleging abuse or neglect of a child. These calls are often anonymous and there is no minimal level of proof that triggers an investigation. When the Division gets a call, they must investigate. Investigating the allegation may include coming to the family’s home and assessing for any safety concerns, speaking to both the parent(s) and the child(ren), and speaking to professionals involved with the child(ren) such as the school or daycare and their pediatrician.

Upon completion of its investigation, the Division will make one of four findings: Substantiated, Established, Not Established and Unfounded. A finding of Unfounded means there is not a preponderance of evidence that a child has been abused or neglected and the evidence indicates the child was not harmed or placed at risk of harm. Such a finding will not be reported and remains confidential, and often any Division records regarding the allegation and investigation will be eligible to be expunged after three years (understand this is not always true). A finding of Not Established again means that there is not a preponderance of evidence that a child has been abused or neglected, but some evidence indicates the child was harmed or placed at risk of harm. This finding will not be reported and remains confidential, but the Division’s records may not be expunged and will be permanently maintained by the agency. A finding of Not Established may be appealed, but only to the Appellate Division within 45 days of receipt of the finding. pexels-pixabay-236215-300x198

Continue reading ›

|

In the matter of  New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. A.S.K. (A-50-17 ___ N.J. ___ (App. d744f80a269bdfa75c34d7830ed52c13-1-300x200Div. 2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s decision to terminate the parental rights of E.M.C. (“Eric”) to his son, A.E.C. (“Adam”) based on the record and the application of the best-interests-of-the-child test. Although the Supreme Court affirmed the decision to terminate Eric’s parental rights, the Court found that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (“DCPP”) made errors regarding the inability to locate Eric, which delayed the child from receiving permanency for an additional 2 1/2 years. The Supreme Court stated that DCPP’s processes would be enhanced by conducting a new search for a parent at each phase of litigation and implementing procedures that retain a party’s past contact information.

Termination of parental rights is warranted when DCPP establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the codified four prongs of the best-interests-of-the-child test are met. The four prongs of that test are: (1) “The child’s safety, health, or development has been or will continue to be endangered by the parental relationship;” (2) “the parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable home for the child and the delay of permanent placement will add to the harm. Such harm may include evidence that separating the child from his resource family parents would cause serious and enduring emotional or psychological harm to the child;” (3) whether “[t]he [D]ivision has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the circumstances which led to the child’s placement outside the home and the court has considered alternatives to termination of parental rights;” and (4) whether “[t]ermination of parental rights will not do more harm than good.”

In this case, the child, Adam, was born on November 14, 2009 and he began living with Eric in March, 2012.  Before Adam came to live with him, Eric had last seen him in July 2011. Adam lived with Eric until July 2013. During that time, DCPP received referrals in April 2012 and September 2012. Eric cooperated with both investigations. Because Adam was residing with Eric, an allegation of abuse and neglect against Adam’s mother, A.K. (“Ali”) resulting from the April 2012 referral was deemed unsubstantiated.

Continue reading ›

|

In this Appellate Division case entitled New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. S.K., A-2734-15 (App.Div. August 31, 2018), the defendant argues the Family Part Judge file000388004075-200x300improperly drew an adverse inference against him when he invoked his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and this New Jersey’s evidence rule, N.J.R.E. 503, in response to DCPP’s (the “Division”) request to call him as a witness in the fact-finding hearing. This issue has not been addressed in a published opinion by any court in New Jersey. The Appellate Division held that a Family Part Judge may not draw an adverse inference of culpability against a defendant who invokes his right against self-incrimination to refuse to testify at a Title 9 fact-finding hearing.

In this case, after an interview with the Division caseworker, the defendant’s two daughters, Jane and Kate, were taken to the police station for interviews as a result of Jane claiming that the defendant abused her when she was younger. Jane told the detective that the sexual abuse began when she was six years old and continued until she was approximately eleven. When the detective asked her if she could tell him what happened, she answered: “No. It’s . . . I don’t actually remember, I have[a] bad memory.” She also claimed she could not remember the last time he molested her.  Through the use of drawings of male and female bodies and pointed to specific body parts to ask Jane where the defendant had touched her, Jane told the police that the defendant touched specific body parts with “his hand and dick.”She claimed he kissed her lips while she was laying down, and touched her “boobs”with his hand, and her vagina with his “dick and hand.” With respect to her vagina, she claimed he touched her “on the inside.” She estimated the molestation occurred less than 20 times.

The detective also interviewed Kate, who at first claimed that Jane did not tell her about the abuse but after the detective pressed, Kate claimed that Jane may have told her something a while ago but she could not remember.

Continue reading ›

|

On May 3, 2018 the New Jersey Appellate  Division published the case of DCPP VS. T.D., R.C. AND R.G., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.G., B.C. AND A.G. (FG-20-0040-13, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-4918-c1b55e653e97997fd3f08500aae0ee83-225x30015T1/A-4923-15T1), an Opinion affirming the trial court’s decision to not terminate the parental rights of T.D., a mother suffering from multiple sclerosis, and R.C., the father of her two youngest children, born in 2012 and 2014, and removed from the care of their parents soon after birth.  The Appellate Division, in denying the appeals of the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division), and the Law Guardian on behalf of the two young children, stated that the “United States Supreme Court has held that biological parents’ relationships with their children ‘is an interest far more precious than any property right.’ Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59 (1982). Therefore, New Jersey courts protect that interest by imposing “strict standards for the termination of parental rights.” Continue reading ›