87 A.3d 279
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2014Background
- Mother (Lisa) previously had one child removed in 2010 after a drug-related arrest; she completed services and the case was dismissed in 2011.
- In October 2012 Lisa brought her two young children to the Division seeking housing assistance and voluntarily consented to their temporary foster placement because she was homeless.
- Division filed a complaint and later sought a Title Nine fact-finding of neglect based on Lisa's inability to provide stable housing.
- At the fact-finding hearing, evidence showed the children were clean, fed, and appeared healthy; Lisa testified she had sought shelter, welfare, and employment but lacked resources and childcare support.
- The family court judge found neglect, attributing homelessness to "poor planning" and criticizing Lisa’s decisions; the court ordered services and visitation.
- The Appellate Division reviewed the record, treating the appeal as timely despite some procedural irregularity, and considered whether poverty/poor planning supported a Title Nine neglect finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether homelessness due to poverty/poor planning can support a Title Nine neglect finding | Division: Lisa's failure to secure housing for children shows she failed to exercise the minimum degree of care | Lisa: Homelessness resulted from poverty and attempts to obtain housing, welfare, and employment; poverty alone cannot establish neglect | Reversed: poverty/poor planning without proof of financial ability or refusal to provide shelter does not establish neglect under Title Nine |
| Whether the court may rely on policy assumptions about welfare program accommodations to find neglect | Division relied on assumption programs would have provided childcare/accommodations | Lisa: No evidence that programs could have accommodated her; court should not assume optimal program functioning | Held: Court may not assume welfare programs always accommodate participants absent supporting evidence |
| Whether the family court’s credibility findings were supported by record evidence | Division: Court found Lisa not credible regarding job-program childcare | Lisa: Record lacks evidence contradicting her testimony | Held: Credibility conclusion about inability to join job program lacked evidentiary support; deference limited where findings rest on unsupported assumptions |
| Remedy for families in Lisa's circumstances | Division: Title Nine finding appropriate to secure protection and services | Lisa: Services may be provided voluntarily or under non-fault statutory mechanisms without a neglect finding | Held: Division may still offer services with consent or seek court help under other statutes, but Title Nine neglect finding is not sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.A., 357 N.J. Super. 155 (App. Div. 2003) (procedural rules for interlocutory appeals in Title Nine cases)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012) (standard of deference to family court factfindings)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.M., 136 N.J. 546 (1993) (neglect where parent financially capable but fails to provide basic needs)
- Doe v. G.D., 146 N.J. Super. 419 (App. Div. 1976) (poverty alone is not a basis for finding abuse or neglect)
- In re Guardianship of J.E.D., 217 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1987) (court should avoid decisions based on economic or cultural bias)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.S., 214 N.J. 8 (2013) (statutory mechanisms permitting provision of services when parents cannot help for non-fault reasons)