N.E., as Legal Guardian for Infant J v. v. State of, 156 A.3d 44

Background

In May–July 2009 the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) investigated reports that four‑month‑old "Baby Jesse" had facial bruising and bloodshot eyes; the maternal grandmother (plaintiff, N.E.) alleged the father J.V. was abusive and mentally unstable.
DYFS caseworker Felix Umetiti and supervisor Nussette Perez conducted interviews, medical contacts, two home visits, and implemented a short‑term voluntary case plan (signed June 12) restricting J.V. from unsupervised contact; the plan expired June 30 and was not actively monitored thereafter.
On July 16, 2009 J.V. violently assaulted the infant, producing catastrophic, permanent injuries; J.V. later pled guilty to aggravated assault and child abuse.
Plaintiff sued DYFS and the two caseworkers under respondeat superior, alleging negligent failure to remove the child; plaintiff settled other medical defendants for $7,000,000 and proceeded only against the State defendants.
A jury found DYFS negligent, apportioned 100% fault to DYFS, and returned a multi‑hundred million dollar verdict; the trial court denied JNOV and new trial but reduced damages by remittitur.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding DYFS employees entitled to qualified immunity under the Tort Claims Act (N.J.S.A. 59:3‑3) for conduct in executing child‑protection statutes and vacated the judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DYFS may be vicariously liable under respondeat superior for caseworkers' investigatory decisions	DYFS should be vicariously liable because Umetiti and Perez negligently failed to remove the child despite evidence of parental unfitness	DYFS caseworkers are immune under the Torts Claims Act for acts in execution/enforcement of law; removal/investigation decisions are discretionary and entitled to immunity	Held for defendants: qualified immunity applies; jury verdict reversed and judgment vacated
Whether the caseworkers' decision to implement a voluntary safety plan (rather than immediate removal) was discretionary vs. ministerial	Plaintiff: the decision was ministerial (failure to perform enumerated tasks) and reviewable for negligence	Defendants: decision was within discretionary investigatory authority under Titles 9 & 30 and DYFS policy, invoking TCA immunity	Held: decision was objectively reasonable and/or made in subjective good faith; it fell within TCA protections
Whether N.J.S.A. 59:3‑3 (qualified immunity) or N.J.S.A. 59:3‑5 (immunity for failure to adopt/enforce law) bars liability	Plaintiff: conduct amounted to negligence not protected by immunity	Defendants: their conduct was within statutory enforcement duties and either objectively reasonable or done in good faith	Held: qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3‑3 applies; ordinary negligence insufficient to overcome immunity
Whether a jury may impose liability based on ordinary negligence for execution of child‑protection statutes	Plaintiff argued jury properly applied negligence standard and found DYFS palpably unreasonable	Defendants argued permitting ordinary negligence exposure would conflict with TCA and chill child‑protection decisionmaking	Held: ordinary negligence is an insufficient basis to impose liability on public employees executing the law; appellate court reversed jury verdict

Key Cases Cited

Coyne v. Dep’t of Transp., 182 N.J. 481 (N.J. 2005) (distinguishing discretionary policymaking from ministerial acts)
Fielder v. Stonack, 141 N.J. 101 (N.J. 1995) (qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3‑3; objective‑reasonableness and good‑faith standards)
Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey, 162 N.J. 375 (N.J. 2000) (standards for assessing objective reasonableness in immunity context)
B.F. v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 296 N.J. Super. 372 (App. Div. 1997) (affirming qualified immunity for DYFS employees despite critical factual findings)
Fitzgerald v. Palmer, 47 N.J. 106 (N.J. 1966) (policy foundation for governmental immunity and separation of powers concerns)