DCPP VS. C.Z. AND E.Z.IN THE MATTER OF A.Z., J.Z., AND C.Z.Â (FN-21-142-14, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED), A-4907-14T1/A-4908-14T1

Background

Parents C.Z. (Conor) and E.Z. (Erica) are the biological parents of three children (born 2006, 2009, 2010); family had long-standing poverty, Section 8 housing, TANF, and food stamps.
In 2013 parents voluntarily left Section 8-subsidized housing to work at Amazon in Pennsylvania; Conor’s hire was rescinded due to a 2004 weapons conviction and Erica was laid off in December 2013.
After eviction and failed shelter/benefits attempts, the family became homeless in late 2013; Division paid for a hotel night and ultimately removed the children in January 2014 as allegedly lacking basic needs.
The Division filed a Title 9 complaint alleging abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(a) (failure to supply shelter/education) and emergency removal followed.
At fact-finding the judge found parents acted with willful/wanton neglect (poor planning, not complying with Section 8, misuse of a tax refund, school absences), and concluded children were in imminent danger; court entered an adverse Title 9 finding.
Appellate court reversed, finding L.W. (435 N.J. Super. 189) controlling: poverty-driven or poor planning homelessness without proof of substantial or imminent risk is not Title 9 neglect; Division should have pursued Title 30 services instead.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parents' homelessness and loss of benefits supported a Title 9 finding for neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)	Division: parents willfully/wantonly failed to provide shelter by noncompliance with Section 8 and misuse of resources, creating imminent danger	Parents: homelessness resulted from poor planning and economic misfortune; children were cared for and not at imminent risk	Reversed: homelessness/poverty and poor planning alone do not establish Title 9 neglect absent proof of substantial or imminent risk (L.W. controlling)
Whether parents' financial decisions (tax refund, not repaying overpayment) demonstrated gross neglect	Division: such choices show deliberate noncompliance and recklessness endangering children	Parents: choices made while attempting to become self-sufficient; no evidence children suffered harm from those decisions	Held: record insufficient to prove willful/wanton conduct causing imminent danger; decisions reflect efforts to exit public assistance, not gross neglect
Whether educational and medical absences supported neglect finding	Division: Alice’s grade-repeat and absences plus delayed enrollment after move show neglect of educational needs	Parents: absences tied to medical issues, young age (not yet compulsory), and enrollment difficulties tied to homelessness/residency proof	Held: educational issues are concerning but standing alone did not prove Title 9 neglect or imminent danger; remedial Title 30 services appropriate
Appropriate statutory path for intervention when poverty causes risk	Division proceeded under Title 9 (abuse/neglect)	Parents argued Division should offer services without Title 9 finding; appellate court urged Title 30 approaches	Held: Division should use Title 30 service remedies when homelessness/poverty create need; Title 9 requires higher showing of imminent risk/gross neglect

Key Cases Cited

New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. L.W., 435 N.J. Super. 189 (App. Div. 2014) (poverty-driven homelessness/poor planning alone cannot sustain Title 9 neglect finding)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 (2011) ("minimum degree of care" denotes gross or wanton negligence standard)
G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (willful and wanton misconduct as reckless disregard standard)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (2010) (trial court factfinding and credibility receive deference; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (Family Part expertise and deference on factual matters)