153 A.3d 941
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2017Background
- A kitchen fire led police and fire officials to discover a large, sophisticated marijuana-growing operation in the basement of a two-family Hackensack home where defendant V.E., partner A.S., and their son R.S. lived; the building was condemned and R.S. was removed by the Division.
- The Division investigated and issued an administrative “established” finding of child neglect/abuse against V.E. (and A.S.), but V.E. was not given an administrative adjudicatory hearing to contest that finding.
- The Division filed a custody complaint under Title 30; the Family Part retained jurisdiction under Title 30, returned physical custody to V.E., and the court dismissed the Title 9 abuse/neglect complaint without holding a Title 9 factfinding hearing.
- V.E. objected and sought judicial review in the Family Part of the Division’s “established” finding; the Family Part dismissed the Title 9 action and refused a hearing, and V.E. appealed.
- The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the Title 9 litigation but held that due process/fundamental fairness requires an administrative (plenary) hearing when the Division issues an "established" finding because such findings are conclusions of abuse/neglect and can be disclosed under statutory schemes with adverse consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Division) | Defendant's Argument (V.E.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Family Part erred by dismissing Title 9 action without allowing V.E. to contest the Division’s "established" finding | The Division argued an "established" finding is an investigatory determination that does not trigger administrative adjudicatory review and is not equivalent to a "substantiated" finding requiring a hearing | V.E. argued an "established" finding subjects her to disclosure and significant adverse consequences and thus she has a right to an evidentiary administrative hearing to contest it | Court: Affirmed dismissal of Title 9 litigation (Family Part did not abuse discretion) but ruled administrative hearing is required to challenge an "established" finding because of due process and disclosure consequences |
| Whether an "established" finding is materially different from a "substantiated" finding for due process purposes | Division: Claimed "established" is less severe and largely for internal agency use with limited disclosure | V.E.: Argued impact of disclosure and collateral consequences are similar enough to warrant adjudicatory protections | Court: "Established" is a finding of abuse/neglect under statute; though disclosure scope differs, the adverse effects are substantial enough to require procedural safeguards and an administrative hearing |
| Whether the Division’s regulatory limits on disclosure avoid the need for an adjudicatory hearing | Division: Relied on regulations that limit certain disclosures (e.g., CARI) to "substantiated" findings to argue lesser impact | V.E.: Pointed to statutes authorizing broader disclosures of abuse/neglect records regardless of regulatory labels | Held: Statutory disclosure authority (N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b), etc.) permits release of information about "established" findings in many contexts; therefore the regulatory distinctions do not eliminate the need for a hearing |
| Proper forum for review of an "established" finding (administrative hearing v. appellate review/judicial factfinding) | Division: Suggested judicial dismissal was appropriate and appellate review is the remedy if any | V.E.: Sought Family Part factfinding or other adjudicatory review | Held: Administrative plenary hearing at OAL is required; appellate courts are not the proper factfinder for resolving credibility/disputed facts and remand to administrative process is the correct route |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (discusses deference to trial court factual findings)
- Finamore v. Aronson, 382 N.J. Super. 514 (standard for appellate review of Family Part findings)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (limits on court intervention when Division is given Title 30 responsibility)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (reversal standard when findings are unsupported)
- P.W.R. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 205 N.J. 17 (Division burden in Title 9 proceedings)
- D.B. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 443 N.J. Super. 431 (treatment of investigatory findings and due process protections)
- In re L.R., 321 N.J. Super. 444 (agency investigatory authority in child-abuse context)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.R., 314 N.J. Super. 390 (right to evidentiary hearing to contest substantiated findings)
- Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. D.F., 377 N.J. Super. 59 (concurrent administrative and judicial proceedings)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. Y.N., 220 N.J. 165 (consequences of abuse/neglect findings, including parental-rights implications)