Mentally Ill Mother Did Not Neglect Children In DYFS Case According to Appellate Court

In New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. C.F., the Appellate Court reversed the lower Family Court's finding that a mother, who has a chronic mental illness, abused or neglected her children. In April of 2012, a New Jersey Family Court held in a Title 9 complaint citing that C.F. had abused and neglected her two children. The case originated in 2011 when DYFS received a referral from the local police department citing that C.F.'s behavior was out of control as she was "throwing things, breaking things, screaming, ranting and raving." The police took C.F. to a local hospital where she was admitted into the psychiatric ward. She was thereafter referred for outpatient treatment. At the time, C.F. reported to a DFYS caseworker that she was hearing voices. As part of the DYFS investigation, a court appointed psychiatrist evaluated C.F. and diagnosed her with "bipolar disorder or possibly an agitated depression with psychosis." The psychiatrist noted that he thought that C.F. would be noncompliant with treatment based upon her history of noncompliance with treatment and her lack of understanding regarding her mental illness. Throughout her life, C.F., was hospitalized for psychiatric reasons at least five times beginning in 1994. She has been prescribed multiple medications for to treat her illnesses. In 2012, the Family Court determined that DYFS satisfied its burden by a preponderance of the evidence that C.F. neglected her children because of her chronic mental illness, her lack of insight into her illness, her refusal to take her medication regularly, her history of noncompliance with treatment, the necessity of police intervention into her family, and her numerous hospitalizations for mental illness. C.F. appealed this decision arguing that DYFS failed to prove that she neglected her children by a preponderance of the evidence because she did not act willfully or wantonly to put her children at risk. In its decision, the Appellate Court found that the narrow issue in the case was whether or not the facts in the record demonstrated that C.F.'s mental illness caused her to fail to exercise a minimum degree of care by recklessly creating a harm or the substantial risk of harm for her children under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b). The Court reversed the Family Court's finding that C.F. abused or neglected her children by holding that the record simply did not show that C.F. ever harmed or threatened to harm the children and that her history of mental illness did not demonstrate a substantial risk that she may harm her children. In its opinion, the Court noted that C.F. had the benefit of living with the children's father and her parents who were all aware of her mental health issues and could intervene to ensure the children were not in danger. In reversing the lower court's decision the Appellate Court ordered that C.F.'s name be removed from the Central Child Abuse Registry. Child neglect and abuse are very serious issues. A court finding of abuse and neglect can have an extremely negative effect on a person's life including the ability to obtain certain jobs and being restricted from places where children frequent. If DYFS has become involved with your family or you expect that DYFS will become involved with your family it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about DYFS, custody & visitation, abuse and neglect, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

DYFS - What Level of Behavior Constitutes Abuse and Neglect

New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. C.W., is a recent New Jersey Appellate Division case that focusing on what behavior constitutes abuse and neglect in a DYFS case. In C.W., the Defendant, Cynthia, appealed from a lower court's order finding that she had neglected her son based upon her cocaine use and also based upon the fact that she physically attacked her husband - an attack that could have caused his death and exposed her son to "unspecified harm." Cynthia and her husband are the biological parents of a son, who was born in November of 2008. In April of 2010, DYFS was called to investigate an incident regarding this family when Cynthia allegedly stabbed her husband and struck him with a frying pan. Subsequently, Cynthia was arrested for the incident and charged with aggravated assault and other weapons offenses. Cynthia's husband declined to press charges against her, but informed the caseworker that he believed that Cynthia was abusing drugs and was in need of counseling. DYFS proposed a plan wherein Cynthia was not allowed to return to her home until she began to engage recommended therapeutic services and Cynthia signed the plan. The caseworker further concluded that Cynthia's violent behavior exposed her son to a substantial risk of harm, which warranted a finding of neglect against her. On June 28, 2010, DYFS filed a complaint under Tile Nine, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21, seeking care and custody of Cynthia's son. The boy was placed with a family friend. On December 6, 2011 a judge issued an order returning Cynthia's son to the care of his parents on the condition that they comply with the services recommended by DYFS. On June 21, 2011, the judge placed an opinion on the record finding that Cynthia had neglected her son based on her drug use and the violent attack against her husband. Cynthia appealed from this judgment arguing that the trial judge erred in finding that her behavior exposed her son to a substantial risk of harm because the judge relied on documentary evidence without requiring the testimony of the DYFS witnesses. The New Jersey Appellate Division found no abuse of the judge's discretion in her determination that Cynthia's drug use constituted neglect of her son. However, the Appellate Court found insufficient evidence in the record for a finding of neglect based solely on Cynthia's attack against her husband. The Court noted that the record did not contain any testimony, by an expert or anyone else, that Cynthia's son was directly or indirectly negatively affected by the attack. If DYFS has become involved with your family or you expect that DYFS will become involved with your family it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about DYFS, custody, child support, visitation or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Parental Rights for the Incarcerated

Those serving life sentences for crimes including murder may still have the right to visitation with their children. In Fusco v. Fusco, 452 A.2d 681 (1982), the NJ Appellate Division held that incarceration of a parent does not result in automatic termination of visitation between the parent and their children. In any case, it will be the best interests of the children that determine whether visitation should be terminated. Fusco was in prison for first degree murder and related charges. The mother of Fusco's child sought to prevent visitation in order to protect the child from full awareness of the brutal crime and hoped not to interfere with the seemingly healthy adjustment the child had made to not having her father in her life. The court held that a plenary hearing was required in order to establish the desirability of maintaining the relationship between parent and child; the psychological burden on the child in seeing their parent in a correctional facility; the burden on the non-incarcerated parent and; the ability to prevent the children from knowledge of the details of the offense. In a recent case, New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. M.L., a father serving a life sentence in Pennsylvania faced termination of parental rights. So fundamental are a parent's rights that the NJ Appellate Court held that M.L. had to be permitted to participate in the trial by some means allowing him to cross-examine witnesses and testify on his own behalf if he wished and reversed the decision of the Warren County Superior Court Judge who terminated his rights and granted guardianship to DYFS. Although there are cases in which a parent's interaction with a child is inimical to the best interests of the child, every parent is entitled to the opportunity to parent until a finding of unfitness of the parent or the danger of either physical or mental harm to the child by the parent is determined in a fair proceeding. If you are involved in a dispute over custody or parenting time you should seek an experienced family law attorney to insure your parental rights are upheld. For more information regarding custody, parenting time, child support, alimony divorce, dissolution or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Kinship Legal Guardianship Information to Caretakers Required in DCCP (DYFS) Matters

A Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS"), now known as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCCP), Social Worker misinformed the caretakers, the child's maternal aunt and uncle, that Kinship Legal Guardianship was only available if the child was 12 years old and older. The Appellate Court held, in New Jersey Division Of Youth And Family Services v. H.R. and N.B., that the caseworker's legal misinformation had to be corrected and the caretaker given sufficient opportunity to consider if she wanted to pursue kinship legal guardianship or adoption after being provided with the truthful information. The matter involved a child under the age of the 12 who had lived with the aunt and uncle since May 2010 due to the birth mother and father's drug addictions. The maternal aunt stated on the record that she would allow the child's father to visit with the child if he demonstrated he was not using drugs and maintained his sobriety. She thought termination of the parent's rights was a drastic step but she also believed the child needed a stable home so she was willing to abide by "DYFS" plan for termination and adoption. The New Jersey law for termination of parental rights (N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)) requires a showing that the court has considered alternatives to termination of parental rights. One alternative to termination of parental rights is kinship legal guardianship. The Appellate Court held that, while the other three sub-parts of the law were proven by "DYFS", such that (1)the child's safety, health or development has been or will continue to be endangered if the parental relationship continues; (2) the parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to provide for a safe and stable home for the child; and (3) termination will not do more harm than good, all of the criteria has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate that it is in the child's best interests. Therefore, the Appellate division reversed and remanded the matter back to the trial court to establish on the record evidence that the caretakers received the correct information about the differences between adoption and kinship legal guardianship and which option they chose considering the best interests of the child. If you are a parent and DCCP has contacted you or if you have been contacted by DCCP to act as a caretaker for a child you should consult with an experienced family law attorney to protect your rights. For more information about DCCP matters, termination of parental rights, custody issues, child support, divorce, dissolution or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Unfounded Abuse and Neglect Ruling Reversed by NJ Appellate Court

A mother was charged with abuse and neglect after drinking beer and taking Xanax after her children were put to bed for the night. The woman's husband was not the biological father but was present at all times and was able to provide care to the children if needed. There was no showing that the children needed the care of the mother after they were put to bed. The children were regularly left in the care of the woman's husband and there was no threat to their safety when they were in his care. The New Jersey Appellate Court reversed the decision finding the record below inadequate to establish that abuse and neglect occurred or that the children were in danger. If you are facing charges of abuse and neglect or your children have been removed by D.Y.F.S., you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on removal, abuse and neglect, D.Y.F.S., custody, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, alimony, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.