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.