Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5452-13T3
01-08-2016
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. L.J., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF C.J.B., a Minor.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Anthony J. Van Zwaren, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Christian A. Arnold, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor C.J.B. (Caitlin A. McLaughlin, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FN-18-171-11. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Anthony J. Van Zwaren, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Christian A. Arnold, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor C.J.B. (Caitlin A. McLaughlin, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
L.J., the stepfather of C.J.B., appeals from the June 11, 2014 order dismissing the abuse or neglect complaint against him before he had the opportunity to contest the substantiation of sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. We affirm.
We use initials and pseudonyms for the children to protect the identity of the parties. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
When she was fourteen years old, C.J.B. disclosed that her stepfather had been sexually abusing her since she was eight years old. C.J.B. was removed from the home. On February 25, 2011, the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) sent L.J. a letter informing him that it had substantiated him for abusing C.J.B. and that he had twenty days to appeal the finding administratively. L.J. was charged criminally and incarcerated. Subsequently, C.J.B.'s mother stipulated to placing her at substantial risk of harm by failing to take protective action when informed by her daughter of L.J.'s requests for sexually explicit photographs of the child.
A finding that the individual caused a child to be an abused or neglected child, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b), which results in placement on the child abuse registry. See N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.11. "'N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.11 creates a child abuse registry that serves as 'the repository of all information regarding child abuse or neglect that is accessible to the public pursuant to State and federal law.' The records may be disclosed to physicians, courts, child welfare agencies, and certain employers." Dep't of Children & Families, Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166, 170 n.2 (2015) (citation omitted).
C.J.B was eventually reunified with her mother and the State asked that L.J.'s fact-finding hearing be delayed until after his criminal trial so that the child and other witnesses would not be required to testify prior to the criminal trial. Over the next two years L.J. did not object to the delay as the fact-finding and criminal trial were both adjourned repeatedly. Finally, in April 2014 the Division sought a dismissal because C.J.B., who was almost eighteen years old, was doing well in the care of her mother, the Division was providing no services to the family and L.J. remained incarcerated. L.J. argued against dismissal, claiming he would not have assigned counsel or sufficient due process before the Office of Administrative Law.
The judge dismissed the litigation, explicitly allowing L.J. twenty days from the date of dismissal to appeal the substantiation administratively. In his opinion, the judge noted that "a significant number of substantiated findings made by the Division are adjudicated before . . . the Office of Administrative Law and are never heard in Superior Court."
After the Division substantiates abuse or neglect against an individual, the perpetrator has twenty days to appeal. In doing so, he or she may request a dispositional review or an administrative hearing. N.J.A.C. 10:120A-2.5(a). The Division is not required to try to conclusion a fact-finding before terminating litigation. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Services v. A.P., 408 N.J. Super. 252, 261-64 (App. Div. 2009) (approving the Division's dismissal of a pending abuse or neglect case upon the filing of a Guardianship complaint prior to a fact-finding hearing), certif. denied, 201 N.J. 153 (2010). L.J. is not the father of the child. He was incarcerated and she was turning eighteen shortly. He had no interest, nor does he currently express any interest, in a court-ordered relationship with her.
L.J. was no more or less entitled to due process than any other individual substantiated by the Division for abuse or neglect. The judge ensured L.J.'s due process rights by explicitly stating in the dismissal order that L.J. had twenty days from the date of the order to appeal administratively.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION