New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. S.H. and M.H., 106 A.3d 1256

Background

In December 2012, after a confrontation about missing items, 15‑year‑old S.H. ("Scott") used profanity at his mother, Susan (defendant), who responded by throwing shoes, hitting him with her hands, striking his legs with golf clubs, and biting his shoulder; Scott then damaged windows and left the home for two days.
School staff observed bruises and three bite marks, reported to the Division, and a caseworker photographed injuries and took Scott to the hospital where he was diagnosed with human bites and leg contusions and prescribed antibiotics.
Scott has ADHD and was in special education; prior corporal punishment reportedly occurred when he was younger.
The Division filed a complaint and obtained custody; a fact‑finding hearing followed in Family Part.
The trial judge found no abuse or neglect, reasoning Susan was provoked by Scott’s profanity and the Division’s involvement; the Division appealed as to Susan.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding the force, instrumentalities (golf clubs and biting), and injuries supported a finding of excessive corporal punishment and abuse.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Susan’s actions constituted "excessive corporal punishment"/child abuse under Title 9	Division: Susan inflicted injuries using instruments and biting; injuries and medical treatment support abuse finding	Susan: Conduct was provoked by Scott’s profanity and history of misbehavior; response was understandable and not abusive	Reversed trial court: Susan’s use of golf clubs and biting and resulting injuries constituted abuse/excessive corporal punishment
Whether provocation by the child justifies physical assault	Division: Profanity did not justify violent, instrument‑based assault	Trial court/Susan: Profanity and ongoing behavioral problems provoked the reaction	Appellate court: Profanity and referral to Division did not legally justify Susan’s violent response
Whether failure/refusal to seek or cooperate with medical/Division services affects abuse determination	Division: Refusal to get medical care and resist services supports neglect/abandonment and culpability	Susan: Initially uncooperative; claimed she was done but later engaged in services	Appellate court: Refusal undermines trial court’s finding of remorse; supports abuse finding (though court did not need to decide abandonment)
Whether child’s disability changes the standard for assessing corporal punishment	Division: Disability can be a factor but does not alter child’s Title 9 protections	Susan: Child’s ADHD and special‑education needs made behavior more difficult to manage, mitigating weight of the parent’s response	Appellate court: Disability is a relevant factor but does not change the legal test; same protections apply; here it did not excuse Susan’s conduct

Key Cases Cited

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (appellate review standard for factual findings)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (standard for appellate deference to trial fact‑finding)
G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (Title 9 focuses on harm to the child; parents liable for intended and unintended harms)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.A., 413 N.J. Super. 504 (consideration of child’s behavioral disorders as part of totality when assessing excessive corporal punishment)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (occasional slaps without marks did not constitute excessive corporal punishment as a matter of law)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.H., 391 N.J. Super. 322 (use of belt leaving welts found to be excessive corporal punishment)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. C.H., 414 N.J. Super. 472 (paddling that left marks was excessive corporal punishment)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.S., 202 N.J. 145 (trial court’s legal conclusions not afforded deference on appeal)