Category Archives: Alcoholism & Drug Addiction

Allison C. Williams presents to the Haydn Proctor Inns of Court


On December 4, 2013, Allison C. Williams will be presenting to the Haydn Proctor Inns of Court. The presentation topic will be Substance Abuse and the Family Law Client.

This issue greatly impacts our society. Many assumptions are made about addiction and parenting that cause difficulty for family court judges. Should addiction cause an immediate removal of children? When is excessive alcohol consumption “abuse” verses “addiction”? How do family law attorneys differentiate a substance disorder Axis I diagnosis from episodic abuse? When does addiction implicate greater mental health concerns (depression, anxiety, mania, etc.)?

For attorneys, addiction implicates a greater responsibility to the client than merely zealously advocating his or her position (custody, reunification, etc.). For attorneys, addicted clients require guidance, information and assistance. However, what is to be done when an addicted client insists upon a course of action that may be harmful to the client? A course that may be harmful to the client’s child? What if the attorney has devised a strategy that may achieve the client’s litigation goals, while jeopardizing his or her sobriety?

These questions and many more will be addressed at the Inns of Court presentation. It will take place from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the American Hotel.

A Father Wrongfully Accused of Rape on the Katie Couric Show


Thomas Kennedy, a father wrongfully accused of raping his daughter, tells his tragic tale on the Katie Couric Show. Thomas, a recovering alcoholic, neglected time with his daughters before he became sober. Unfortunately, post-divorce, his daughter was seeking attention, calling out for help, and this was her plea.

Because Thomas is a recovering alcoholic, Katie Couric asked the question if there was any possibility that he did something – anything – and did not recall it. Thomas maintains that this was impossible, as he never drank when he had custody or care of the children. Apparently, years after the wrongful conviction, the child came forward and recanted the allegation.

The only evidence against Thomas was his daughter’s accusation. In New Jersey, in order for DYFS (child welfare authorities) to rely upon the child’s hearsay statements of abuse, there must be corroboration. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4). But, in Thomas’ case, his daughter took the witness stand, pointed to him and testified that he raped her.

And, sadly, many people ask the very question that Katie Couric posed to Thomas – why would a child tell such a heinous lie? That natural inclination to wonder makes overcoming such allegations particularly difficult.

Here at http://NewJerseyDYFSDefense.com, we can help parents wrongfully accused of child abuse, including child sexual abuse.

Intoxication from Prescription Drugs is NOT automatically Child Neglect


On October 2, 2012, the Appellate Division published the case of DYFS (DCPP) v. S.N.W., providing trial Courts with guidance to determine allegations of neglect where a parent consumes prescription medication to the point of intoxication.

In S.N.W., the parents both ingested prescribed Xanax – allegedly more than the maximum dosage permitted per day – while caring for their children, and as a result of the ingestion, became shaky and unstable, coherent, but visibly intoxicated. During the initial trial, the only evidence of intoxication was the observations of the police officer and the DYFS (DCPP) worker. No medical evidence supported intoxicated; none was offered. Evidence tended to suggest that the mother had taken more medication than was prescribed.

The trial court made a finding of neglect, after which an appeal ensued. Ultimately, the case resulted in this published decision, where the Appellate Division gave us two valuable holdings for defense of parents in these cases. First, the Court held that trial Courts MUST focus on the conduct of the parent when evaluating neglect cases – the G.S. standard of “willful and wanton misconduct” that rises to the level of recklessness MUST be present to have “neglect” pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c).

Second, if the parent ingests medication as prescribed, the legal standard for neglect precludes a finding of neglect. However, if the medication dosage was exceeded, a neglect finding is NOT automatic. Rather, the Court must evaluate various factors, including but not limited to the amount ingested, the physical effect on the parent, whether excess dosage was accidental or deliberate, and the ability of the parent to exercise the minimum degree of care in that state. Again, the Court reiterated – and strengthened the ultimate conclusion – that knee-jerk assumptions of “drugs = neglect” are NOT acceptable under New Jersey law.

Substance Abuse Evaluations by DCPP/DYFS


When the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP), f/k/a the Division of Youth and Family Services, (DYFS) receives an allegation of abuse or neglect stemming from the use or abuse of alcohol or drugs (legal or illegal), often the accused parent is asked to submit to a substance abuse evaluation. This process entails meeting with a Licensed Clinical Alcohol and Drug Counselor (LCADC) and taking a series of quantitative tests (yes/no; true/false; scale from 1 to 10; etc.) designed to evaluate potentially riskful behaviors involved in substance use.

Parents are often loathe to submit to any form of evaluation by the Division for fear that the agency’s bias in referring the parent for evaluation will taint the evaluator and result in an unfair assessment. This fear has much greater validity when the evaluation being proposed is a psychological evaluation, rather than a substance abuse evaluation.

The reason is that addiction is succinctly defined as compulsive behavior that continues in the face of adverse consequences. The answers to the substance abuse evaluation determine the risk; whereas, in psychological evaluations, there is a higher degree of subjectivity involved in interpreting the results of the quantitative tests.

If asked to submit to a Substance Abuse Evaluation, defense counsel may limit a parent’s exposure by implementing these practice pointers:

1. Ask that the evaluation not be used in the Fact Finding hearing.

Alcohol or drug addition is not, per se, child abuse. Div. of Youth and Fam. Svcs. v. V.T., 423 N.J.Super. 320 (App.Div.2011). Thus, the existence of an addiction is arguably not probative of whether or not such condition harmed a child on a specific occasion.

2. If the parent submits to evaluation and subsequently engages in treatment, that treatment should not be used in the Fact Finding hearing as evidence that an addiction existed.

Evidence in Fact Finding hearings must be “competent, material and relevant”. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(c). That means, the Rules of Evidence apply. N.J.R.E. 407 prohibits the use of corrective action to prove the condition corrected.

“[E]vidence of remedial measures is excluded not because it lacks relevancy, but because admission of said testimony might discourage corrective action and induce perpetuation of the damage and condition that gave rise to the lawsuit.” Hansson v. Catalytic Constr. Co., 43 N.J.Super. at 29. That principle applies equally in child welfare cases, as it does in negligence cases.

3. Stipulating to the existence of an addiction obviates the need for cumulative evidence, such as the substance abuse evaluation, to prove that fact. See, N.J.R.E. 101(a)(4).

4. Even if a Substance Abuse Evaluation and/or treatment compliance comes into evidence, the focus for the Court must be directed to the risks inherent in the situation and whether a child has suffered harm or is likely to suffer future harm.

Where unintentional conduct (i.e., neglect) is alleged, the Division maintains the burden of proof to demonstrate the probability of present or future harm. New Jersey Div. of Youth & Fam. Svcs. v. S.S., 372 N.J.Super. 13 (App.Div.2004). Neglect cannot be founded on assumptions and suppositions.

These pointers are not designed to provide legal advice. For more information, please contact Allison C. Williams, Esq. and schedule a Consultation.