Is it Time to Reign in the Heavy Hand of Child Protection and Permanency Agency? (DCPP Formerly Known as DYFS)
Society’s interest in the protection of children is a significant and legitimate interest of the State. That interest still has to be balanced with the constitutional rights of those being investigated by child welfare agencies.
The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP), formerly known as the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) has been granted broad powers both from State statute and the New Jersey Administrative Code. The question becomes whether agents of the State acting under those powers, exceed their scope, and violate the due process rights of those parents and families that they are meant to protect? The CPP’s investigatory broad power flows from the structure of statutes and administrative code. The overzealous application of such power, even if intended in good faith, can be intrusive and damaging to the family unit the laws were intended to protect.
The Basic Processing of an Allegation of Abuse and/or Neglect:
First, CPP is required to investigate all allegations of child abuse and neglect.
Second, anyone who reports an allegation of child abuse and neglect is protected by the cloak of confidentiality.
Third, at the conclusion of its investigation CPP makes a determination based upon the New Jersey Administrative Code. N.J.A.C. 10:129-7.3. The “Division Action” determination levels are:
3. Not Established – if there is not a preponderance of the evidence that a child is an abused or neglected child, but “evidence indicates that the child was harmed or was placed at risk of harm;”
The person identified as the “perpetrator” who is the subject of a “Notification of Finding” as to Substantiated and/or Established has the opportunity to dispute a finding of abuse or neglect. N.J.A.C. 10:129-7.6, N.J.A.C. 10:120A. There is an dispositional review and/or appeal process from a determination of the first two levels, which allows for review by the agency itself and then by the Office of Administrative Law pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq. Such a process allows for notice and the ability to challenge the determinations by the agency. Under these determinations there are provisions to provide due process in the action by the State.
When the CPP investigation determines that the allegation is Unfounded, there is a process by which it remains in the local regional CPP office and then is subject to “expunction” after a period of three years if no further issues are raised. N.J.A.C. 10:129-7.7, N.J.A.C. 10:129-8. Again such a process where information relating to an allegation remains at a local CPP office for a limited period of time and then is expunged appears to be rational and reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.
Where Due Process is Denied:
In the never-never-land of “Not Established,” with insufficient evidence to support abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, CPP will make a finding that there is “evidence that the child was harmed or was placed at risk of harm.” The allegations, the investigation information, and “findings” remain in CPP’s local regional office files forever, without the right to know the “evidence,” to challenge the allegations, and without the right of expunction.
What can occur is an anonymous or confidential allegation of harm or risk of harm, that is “not established,” will remain in a government file for that “perpetrator,” that parent, or family, forever. When a finding of Not Established is made, the “perpetrator,” the parent, the family, has no right to know who made the allegation or of what the evidence consists. The “perpetrator” the parent, the family, has no right to review or to challenge the allegation. The “perpetrator” has no right to have the allegation, investigation, and finding expunged from a permanent government file.
What is most striking is that the “perpetrator,” parent, or family has no right to even know what was alleged. Logic would dictate that if a governmental agency makes a finding that “evidence indicates that the child was harmed or was placed at risk of harm” but that no action is necessary, that the parent or family would at least be advised of what the evidence of harm or risk of harm so that the family could correct any such harm or risk of harm. Instead, no action is taken and the finding is placed permanently in CPP’s local regional files. N.J.A.C. 10:129-7.3.
When a Determination of "Not Established" Violates Due Process:
While the need to protect children from abuse and neglect is a legitimate governmental interest, no agency should be allowed based on “confidential” information to make a finding of harm or risk of harm and maintain a permanent file without the ability of the parent or family to seek a due process review of such a determination.
Where it Gets Scary:
Based on an anonymous and/or confidential report, CPP will arrive at a family’s home with uniformed law enforcement officers (usually two uniformed armed officers) demand entry to inspect the home, demand the parents/guardians sign releases for medical records of the children alleged to have been abused or neglected, and will proceed to interrogate the parents or guardians, sometimes in the presence of young children. When DYFS has probable cause to conduct a search there is a mechanism to obtain access to a residence and that is establishing probable cause before a court. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8. Although CPP has the ability to obtain a court Order for the search and arrest of individuals, it is not an unusual practice to engage in these investigatory actions without prior judicial approval.
When CPP demands access to a home it does so under circumstances that are intimidating to any parent to any family. Under these circumstances CPP does not comply with the protections under the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and does so in violation of the law.
CPP/DYFS’s authority and interest in protecting children does not allow
“confidential” and faceless allegations to override the privacy rights of citizens and the rights to be free from warrantless searches under our State and Federal Constitutions. U.S.Const., amend. IV, XIV, N.J.Const., arts. 1, 7, 10; New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c) (2004).
In New Jersey when law enforcement seeks to conduct a search without a warrant, as a matter of constitutional requirement, the State is required to obtain proper consent advising the parties that they have the right to refuse consent (in the absence of an independent exception to the warrant requirement that would otherwise justify a warrantless search). State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 240-41 (2007); State v. Domicz, 188 N.J. 285, 307 (2006); State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349, 354 (1975). When confronted by an investigator from CPP and two uniformed armed law enforcement officers the alleged “perpetrators” are not properly notified of their constitutional right to refuse CPP/DYFS and police entry into their home. No Consent to Search Form is offered or executed. There is no warrant, no probable cause determination by a court, and there is no compliance with Elders, Domicz, and Johnson. There is simply coercion through the use of two uniformed, armed officers, under the not so veiled threat of removal of children, to search a residence and interrogate parents, family members, and possibly neighbors.
Where it Gets Really Scary:
The problem with the absolute confidentiality of such allegations is any person, who acts in bad faith, who makes a false allegation of child abuse or neglect against another person can trigger an investigation and cause a CPP investigator and armed law enforcement officers to appear at a family’s home. That source is cloaked with confidentiality and can set in motion extremely intimidating law enforcement action without fear of accountability. It is not known whether CPP ever takes action against or investigates sources that make allegations that CPP ultimately determines to be unfounded. There is a new phenomenon called “swatting” where anonymous bad faith callers trigger swat teams to descend on a location putting civilians and law enforcement agents at risk. Anonymous allegations of child abuse and neglect can be misused in the same way. Bad faith reports of child abuse should not be permitted without consequence.
Minimum due process must be provided in those cases where allegations are “Not Established,” yet a permanent record will be established that there is “evidence of harm” or “risk of harm” to children. A permanent record should not be permitted without the subject being able to know the allegations, be able to respond, and challenge a determination of “evidence of harm or risk of harm.” There is no justification to deny review, appeal and due process in a situation where there will be a permanent record of harm.
A simple and proper resolution of this anomalous situation would be to amend the New Jersey Administrative Code and do away with the third level Division Action, i.e. situations where the allegation is “Not Established” but “evidence indicates that the child was harmed or was placed at risk of harm.” If that level of determination were removed, what would remain would be due process provisions for those determinations that are “Substantiated” and “Established,” and an expunction provision (after 3 years) for “Unfounded” determinations.
Another issue is whether Unfounded allegations should be reviewed to determine if the allegations were made in bad faith. The potential for “confidential” allegations of abuse is substantial. When an allegation has been made and the CPP investigation reveals that the accusation is determined to be “Unfounded,” the CPP should conduct some assessment to determine whether the allegation was made in good faith or driven by some bad faith intent. Unfounded accusations that trigger the intrusive and intimidating action by the CPP are an attack on the integrity and security of the family unit. There should not be an indifference to the impact such investigations have on families that have been the subject of “not established” or “unfounded” accusations.
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the date of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.