Call Now For Help

732.580.1237

NJ Appeal Update – DYFS Cases (Corporal Punishment – Child Abuse)

08
Dec
2009

by in Criminal Defense

The following appeal was recently decided pertaining to DYFS cases and finding that corporal punishment, under the facts, did not constitute abuse or neglect. Summary by Mark Friedman.

DYFS v. E.G.P. and C.P., unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-1238-08T2 (November 6, 2009) – Order finding substantiated abuse and placing E.G.P.’s name in the child abuse registry reversed.

“In departing from the ALJ’s finding of no excessive corporal punishment, the Director specifically noted the eye injury to C.J. and the apparent force used to paddle both girls, evidenced by the fact that the paddle broke during the paddling. A finding of excessive corporal punishment inflicted upon C.J. and Z.J. does not, however, complete the definition of abuse or neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6.8-21.

Rather, ‘as a part of its burden of proof, [in abuse and neglect cases] the State must still demonstrate by a preponderance of the competent, material and relevant evidence … the probability of present or future harm.’ N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. S.S., 372 N.J. Super. 13, 24 (App. Div. 2004). This burden is met with proof that C.J. and Z.J. suffered physical, mental or emotional impairment or the risk thereof as a result of E.G.P.’s actions. N.J.S.A. 9:6.8-21(c)(4)(b).

The ALJ expressly found no such impairment or risk of impairment, determining that the incident was ‘isolated,’ the injuries were not serious, and there was no impairment or ‘imminent danger of becoming impaired.’ The Director did not reject these factual findings and in fact agreed that the actual harm to the teenagers was not ‘critically severe.’

While we discern no basis to disturb the Director’s finding that E.G.P.’s action constituted excessive corporal punishment, the absence of proof of the ‘probability of present or future harm’ to C.J. and Z.J., who were adults by the time of the hearing, renders the Division’s proofs lacking as to an essential element in the definition of abuse or neglect…. As such, we are constrained to reverse.” (Drew A. Molotsky)

  • //www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a1238-08.pdf

LOCATIONS

*ALL LOCATIONS BY APPOINTMENT ONLY*

CALL NOW FOR HELP

732.580.1237

CONNECT WITH US

*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey | Rating Methodology | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
The information contained in on this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio or the information, products, or services contained on www.anthonyvecchiolaw.com for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
The results of verdicts and settlements mentioned herein are not typical. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

Site by Consultwebs.com: Law Firm Website Designers / Criminal Defense/DWI Lawyer Marketing.