DCPP VS. D.M. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DIVISIONOF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-1139-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 22, 2017Background
- In 1998 DCF substantiated that respondent D.M. physically abused her adopted son (D.) after an incident where D. sustained bleeding to the nose and linear bruises/abrasions to his arms and back; police sent D. to the hospital. D.M. admitted to hitting D. during a confrontation and D. initially told police she hit him with a broom.
- The criminal charges were no-billed; the 1998 DCF notice was defectively served and D.M. did not learn of the substantiation until 2013 when an employer CARI check revealed it.
- D.M. contested the substantiation at an OAL hearing in 2015; the ALJ accepted the underlying facts but reversed the substantiation, finding the conduct was an isolated, aberrational corporal punishment (relying on K.A.).
- The DCF Assistant Commissioner reviewed the ALJ decision, rejected its legal conclusion, and reinstated the substantiation and Central Registry listing, concluding D.M. engaged in excessive corporal punishment (failure to exercise minimum degree of care).
- The Appellate Division affirmed DCF, holding the Assistant Commissioner’s decision was supported by the record and not arbitrary or capricious: hitting with a hand and breaking a broom that caused injuries met the statutory standard for excessive corporal punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.M.) | Defendant's Argument (DCF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.M.'s conduct constituted "abuse" under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4) (excessive corporal punishment) | D.M.: conduct was isolated, aberrational, mitigated by son's severe mental/behavioral disorders, and not excessive under K.A.; ALJ was correct to reverse substantiation | DCF: force used (backhand causing nose bleed; broom strikes breaking broom and causing injuries) was foreseeable and beyond reasonable corporal punishment; constituted failure to exercise minimum degree of care | Court: Affirmed DCF — conduct met excessive corporal punishment standard; Assistant Commissioner’s legal conclusion reasonable and supported by record |
| Whether the Assistant Commissioner properly rejected the ALJ's recommended reversal | D.M.: Assistant Commissioner failed to state new or modified findings with particularity and misapplied the legal standard | DCF: Agency explained why K.A. was distinguishable and applied governing standards (G.S., M.C. III) to ALJ's factual findings | Court: Affirmed — agency gave adequate reasons, grounded in record, for rejecting ALJ and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously |
| Whether D.M.'s post-incident conduct and career in childcare preclude a finding of abuse or registry placement | D.M.: long childcare career and lack of subsequent incidents show risk of future harm was absent; mitigation | DCF: registry placement depends on facts at time of incident; subsequent conduct does not negate abusive conduct | Court: Affirmed — subsequent good conduct does not negate past abuse; focus is on risk at time of incident |
| Whether DCF met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence given witness inconsistencies and passage of time | D.M.: inconsistencies in D.'s statements and long delay undermine proof | DCF: medical, police, caseworker reports and admissions provided sufficient evidence of injuries and cause | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supported finding (medical findings, admissions, broken broom, injuries) |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.A., 413 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 2010) (reversed substantiation where single abusive incident was aberrational and mitigated by child’s disorder and parental circumstances)
- G.S. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines failure to exercise minimum degree of care and standard for abuse)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C., III, 201 N.J. 328 (2010) (parental intentional act that disregards substantial probability of injury constitutes abuse)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (2011) (slap to a teenager without bruising/marks generally not excessive corporal punishment)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. C.H., 414 N.J. Super. 472 (App. Div. 2010) (use of instrument with force leaving marks can constitute excessive corporal punishment)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.H., 391 N.J. Super. 322 (App. Div. 2007) (belt strikes leaving welts supported finding of excessive corporal punishment)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. S.H., 439 N.J. Super. 137 (App. Div. 2015) (disabled child’s behavior is a relevant factor but does not change the standard; use of instrument and resulting injuries are controlling factors)