Department of Children & Families v. D.B., 129 A.3d 332

Background

Two consolidated appeals by public-school employees (A.G., a teacher’s aide, and D.B., an art teacher) challenge IAIU findings dated August 2013 that each child was “not established” as abused but “was harmed or placed at risk of harm.”
Investigations: A.G. accused of striking a 5‑year‑old autistic student (Joey); multiple witness interviews produced conflicting accounts, limited physical evidence, and A.G. was terminated by the district. D.B. accused of grabbing/scratching a 6‑year‑old (Larry); witnesses were divided and the nurse observed transient faint marks.
The Department’s letters used the regulation framework (N.J.A.C. 10:129‑7.3) with four possible findings: substantiated, established, not established, unfounded; “not established” is investigatory, retained in agency records, but not disclosed on public registry.
Both teachers sought reclassification of the findings to “unfounded” and challenged the validity and effects of the regulation and the wording of the Department’s findings letters on due process and reputation.
The Appellate Division affirmed the “not established” substantive conclusions but reversed and remanded for the Department to revise its findings letters to make explicit that the IAIU made no adjudicative determination of witness accuracy and that its findings are not binding or conclusive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IAIU’s “not established” finding and dissemination to employers/parents violates due process	A.G./D.B.: Notification and language effectively adjudicate guilt and damage reputation, entitling them to greater procedural protections	Department: The regulation is within statutory authority; “not established” is investigatory and dissemination is permissible	Court: No due process violation; investigatory findings may be shared and do not automatically trigger adjudicatory hearings
Whether N.J.A.C. 10:129‑7.3 and retention of records indefinitely violates statutory or constitutional rights	Plaintiffs: Retention and nondisclosure scheme (keeping records forever) violates statute and harms reputation	Department: Retention is authorized and necessary to protect children; only substantiated findings are publicly disclosed	Court: Retention and limited disclosure are permissible under agency mandate; plaintiffs have lesser due process interest in internal records
Whether IAIU exceeded its authority by making conclusory factual statements in superintendent letters	Plaintiffs: Letters’ factual recitations imply adjudication and are beyond investigatory remit	Department: Has broad authority to investigate and communicate concerns to employers	Held: Agency has authority to investigate and report concerns, but must avoid language that implies adjudication or vests finality in witness accounts
Whether the agency must correct/clarify the wording of its findings letters	Plaintiffs: Letters must be changed to remove misleading/conclusive phrasing and to state that findings are not binding	Department: Maintains current practice but concedes investigatory nature	Court: Plaintiffs entitled to corrected letters—IAIU must state it made no determination of accuracy of conflicting statements and that findings are not binding

Key Cases Cited

In re an Allegation of Physical Abuse Concerning L.R., 321 N.J. Super. 444 (App. Div.) (limited dissemination of investigatory findings does not require an adjudicatory hearing)
N.J. Dep’t of Children & Families’ Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit v. S.P., 402 N.J. Super. 255 (App. Div.) (teacher has right to challenge wording of investigatory findings; letters must avoid conveying adjudicatory finality)
In re an Allegation of Physical Abuse Concerning R.P., 333 N.J. Super. 105 (App. Div.) (DYFS findings that are investigatory need not provide adjudicatory procedural protections; agency must avoid implying findings are from an adjudicatory hearing)
A.I. v. DYFS, 393 N.J. Super. 131 (App. Div.) (IAIU letters must be reworded to reflect investigative, non‑adjudicative nature and note findings are not binding)
G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for what constitutes abuse/neglect; only gross or wanton negligence qualifies under statute)
L.A. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 217 N.J. 311 (Sup. Ct.) (clarifying statutory definitions and limits on DYFS authority)
Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (due process and reputational liberty interests; context matters for required procedural protections)