New Jersey Department of Children & Families v. I.S.
214 N.J. 8
| N.J. | 2013Background
- The Division sought care and custody of nine-year-old twins I.S. and E.S. under Title 9 and Title 30:4C-12 after an emergency removal.
- A Title 9 finding of abuse/neglect was not established; the court nevertheless ordered Division custody under Title 30 due to health/safety concerns.
- The case featured extensive history of referrals, initial unfounded allegations, and ongoing custody litigation between I.S. and E.S. prior to removal.
- Holley House Center placement was ordered for the twins, with ongoing reunification analysis and multiple permanency hearings.
- In 2010–2011, the court ultimately granted custody to E.S. for S.S. and to I.S. for N.S., with S.S. placed with E.S. and N.S. returned to I.S. under continued Division supervision.
- The appellate courts held that Title 9 could not be used to indefinitely extend jurisdiction absent abuse/neglect, but Title 30:4C-12 provided a valid framework for services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title 9 may continue custody without abuse/neglect findings | I.S. contends Title 9 cannot extend without a finding of abuse/neglect. | Division argues Title 9 may coexist with Title 30, and Section 12 allows intervention without fault findings. | Title 9 must be dismissed absent abuse/neglect; Title 30 may govern thereafter. |
| Whether Section 30:4C-12 can authorize care for a child in need without fault-based parental culpability | I.S. argues Section 12 requires fault-based grounds similar to Title 9. | Division contends Section 12 authorizes services when health/safety require it, without fault findings. | Section 12 permits Division services for a child in need even without fault-based culpability. |
| Whether the best-interests analysis under 9:2-4 applies in the Title 30 disposition for S.S. | I.S. argues 9:2-4 should not govern Title 30 custody decisions. | Division and court properly used best-interests analysis to determine custody in light of the child’s needs. | Best-interests framework appropriately guided the Title 30 disposition for S.S. |
| Whether the six-month limit of Section 12 governs the order and whether extensions are appropriate | I.S. argues temporary relief cannot extend beyond six months without proper process. | Division points to the extension mechanism with a summary hearing upon notice. | Six-month limit applies; extensions may be granted if best interests justify continuation. |
| Whether continuing Title 9 jurisdiction after no abuse/neglect was found was reversible error | I.S. argues continued Title 9 jurisdiction was improper and overbroad. | Division contends concurrent use of 9 and 30 is permissible to provide needed services. | Court erred in maintaining Title 9 orders absent abuse/neglect and reversed that portion; Title 30 upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (Section 12 as tool to protect children in need, with or without abuse findings)
- G.M. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 198 N.J. 382 (2009) (Title 9 continuation requires abuse/neglect finding; otherwise dismissal)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. D.C., 118 N.J. 388 (1990) (Six-month limit and extension considerations under Title 30)
- J.C. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 423 N.J. Super. 259 (App.Div. 2011) (Section 12 viability and six-month timing in practice)
- T.S. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 426 N.J. Super. 54 (App.Div. 2012) (Continued intervention under Section 12 consistent with statutory scheme)
- G.S. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 137 N.J. 174 (1994) (G.S. progeny on Title 30 vs Title 9 interplay and safeguards)