DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ETC. VS. S.M. (DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-3016-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- S.M., a Division of Child Protection and Permanency caseworker with 10 years' service, supervised "high alert" visits between H.B. and her adopted son M.B. in Sept–Nov 2015.
- Protocol required the worker to maintain continuous visual and audio contact, use an emergency buzzer, and permit random security walk-throughs.
- A third-party emailed the Division alleging S.M. left visits unsupervised and attached Facebook-posted photos showing an empty chair during November 16 and 23 visits.
- Interviews: H.B. and family members said they observed S.M. absent, sleeping, or on her phone; H.B. posted photos on Facebook. S.M. denied sleeping, admitted taking calls/messages, and explained absences were for bathroom breaks with coworker coverage. A coworker corroborated a text exchange arranging relief.
- The Public Defender’s Conflict Investigation Unit (PDCIU) concluded the neglect allegation was "not established": the child was placed at risk of harm but the preponderance standard for abuse/neglect was not met. S.M. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.M.) | Defendant's Argument (PDCIU/Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PDCIU applied the preponderance standard and adequately analyzed evidence | Investigator merely recited evidence without applying preponderance; findings arbitrary and capricious; result should be "unfounded" | Investigation applied correct standards; record shows risk of harm though not abuse/neglect by preponderance | Court held the agency applied proper standard; substantial evidence supports "not established" |
| Whether the finding should be "unfounded" instead of "not established" | Photos and witnesses supposedly demonstrate no risk; request to recharacterize finding to avoid stigma | Evidence (photos, admissions, witness statements) indicated the child was placed at risk even if not abused/neglected | Court affirmed "not established" because record indicated risk of harm though not meeting statutory abuse/neglect standard |
| Whether notification must state investigation is inconclusive and non-adjudicatory | Due process requires explicit language explaining the finding is investigatory and not adjudicatory | Agency procedures and precedent already treat such findings as investigatory; no procedural defect here | Court rejected demand for specific language; no due process violation found |
| Whether appellate review should substitute court judgment for agency expertise | N/A (procedural) | Agency findings entitled to deference; court should not substitute its judgment | Court applied deferential standard and declined to overturn agency decision |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (appellate review of agency determinations) (defines limited scope of appellate review of administrative decisions)
- In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (standards for arbitrariness review) (sets three-part inquiry for reviewing agency action)
- G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (definition of neglect) (only gross or wanton negligence qualifies as failure to exercise minimum degree of care)
- L.A. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 217 N.J. 311 (neglect standard) (clarifies degree of negligence necessary for statutory neglect)
- In re R.P., 333 N.J. Super. 105 (investigatory nature of unsubstantiated findings) (findings that charges are not substantiated but indicate risk are investigatory, not adjudicatory)
- Dep't of Children & Families v. D.B., 443 N.J. Super. 431 (employee challenge to wording) (teachers/employees may challenge how findings are communicated to employers)