Recent New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Child Protection Law New Jersey 

On September 6, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided New Jersey Div. of Child. Prot. & Permanency v. C.R.A.G., 479 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 2024), a consolidated case, in which the Appellate Division determined that the trial court’s finding against the parents in an action involving abuse and neglect was improper as to the defendant R.G. (Rick), because the family court did not have jurisdiction over him since there was insufficient evidence that he was the child Michael’s guardian under Title 9, and although the family court had jurisdiction over the defendant C.R.A.G. (Cynthia), there was insufficient evidence that she caused Michael actual harm and/or placed her own three children at risk of imminent harm.  

Facts and Procedural History of the Case: Child Protection Law New Jersey 

The case arose after the tragic death of Michael, a child who Cynthia babysat for in her home, and who was not related to either Cynthia or Rick, her husband. On February 19, 2021, Michael was found unresponsive and later pronounced dead. Cynthia had been caring for Michael at the time after her niece, who was initially responsible for babysitting Michael, moved out. At some point, Cynthia began babysitting Michael overnight from Monday through Friday due to Michael’s father’s changed work schedule. Cynthia testified that Rick was initially unaware of the babysitting arrangement and was unhappy when he found out, because Michael’s parents only provided clothes, diapers and a gallon of milk, leaving Cynthia to provide food for the child.  

The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) substantiated claims of medical neglect and inadequate supervision against Rick and Cynthia for Micheal. The Division also substantiated claims of the risk of harm as to their own three children, because although the children were not found to be directly abused and neglected, the Division found that Rick and Cynthia’s failure to act on behalf of Michael placed their own children at risk.  

The family court initially found that Cynthia and Rick were Michael’s legal guardians under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(a). The trial court then found that both Cynthia and Rick abused or neglected Michael and concluded that their failure to seek medical attention for him placed their own children in danger. The court based its decision on the extensive injuries Michael suffered, including multiple bruises, abrasions, and internal injuries.  

Appellate Review and Legal Issues: New Jersey Appellate Decisions 

On appeal, Rick argued that the trial court erred in qualifying him as Michael’s guardian under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(a) because he was neither Michael’s babysitter nor approved of the care arrangement for Michael. The Law Guardian supported Rick’s argument. The Appellate Division agreed, holding that Rick’s limited involvement with Michael did not rise to the level of “ongoing and continuous caretaking” that would make him a legal guardian under child protection law in New Jersey. The Appellate Division explained that an allegation of child abuse or neglect under Title 9 generally requires that the offender have a responsibility or legal duty to care for the child or to protect the child’s welfare. Therefore, the family court had no jurisdiction under Title 9 to find that Rick abused or neglected Michael, or by extension, his own children. 

Cynthia’s Role in Michael’s Care: Child Protection Law and Neglect Defense 

Cynthia also challenged the family court’s findings, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that she caused Michael’s injuries or failed to exercise appropriate care. The Appellate Division agreed, finding that while Cynthia may have assumed a caretaking role for Michael, there was no clear evidence that she caused his injuries or that her actions placed her children at risk of harm. The court noted that the Division had not provided expert testimony to establish when or how Michael sustained his injuries, and there was no conclusive evidence that Cynthia could have anticipated his medical condition worsening to the point of fatal injury. Additionally, Cynthia’s prompt response when Michael was found injured, including contacting emergency services, further demonstrated that she had not been neglectful. 

DCPP’s Argument Regarding the Defendants’ Children: Abuse and Neglect Law New Jersey 

The Appellate Division further rejected DCPP’s argument that Cynthia’s treatment of Michael could serve as evidence of abuse or neglect of her own children. The Appellate Division emphasized that Cynthia’s relationship with Michael, a temporary arrangement, was vastly different from her relationship with her biological children, for whom she had more control and knowledge over their medical care. The court found that there was no direct evidence suggesting that Cynthia’s children were ever in immediate danger.  

Conclusion: Key Takeaways in Child Protection Law New Jersey 

The Appellate Division reversed the family court’s decision, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Rick, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims against Cynthia. This decision underscores the importance of clearly establishing both legal responsibility and sufficient evidence before finding individuals liable for abuse or neglect under New Jersey’s child protection law.  

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929. 

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.