No More KLG based upon DCPP Lies … at least Not This One Particular Lie


In a published decision on June 11, 2013, the Appellate Division has explicitly prohibited trial Courts from ratifying the outright FALSE information given to resource parents by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (“DCPP”) (formerly, the Division of Youth and Family Services (“DYFS”)). Specifically, in DYFS v. H.R. & N.B., the Appellate Division remanded to the trial Court the issue of alternatives to TPR (termination of parental rights) because the relative placement repeatedly testified that DCPP had told her in no uncertain terms that Kinship Legal Guardianship (KLG) was not available for her niece because the child was not 12 years of age.

The Court pointed out that this clearly erroneous 12-year benchmark was NOT included in the KLG statute. Further, once the trial Court became aware of the relatives’ misinformed perception that KLG was not available for a child under age 12, it had a duty to correct the misinformation.

What’s shocking about this decision is NOT the fact that DCPP lied to the resource parents. That happens all the time. Any attorney who does this work is likely familiar with the anecdotal tales of foster parents being told they MUST adopt or the children for whom they provide care will be yanked away by the Division. We hear, routinely, about the “12-year-old-rule” for KLG. No surprises there.

But when, exactly, is someone – ANYONE – going to address the fact that this very powerful government agency routinely lies to families involved with the child welfare system? This case provides evidence that, not only was the 12-year-old-rule offered up as gospel by the caseworker involved with this family, but she learned of it when she attended a foster parent class!

The Division LIE – “the 12-year-old-rule” was a part of its inculcation of foster parents… State-administered training courses premised upon a LIE by the State. And yet, while the Appellate Division correctly remanded the matter to be considered anew by the trial judge because of the patently inaccurate information provided by DCPP to the foster parent, the fact that an appeal was required in order to right this wrong is disturbing.

When, exactly, will trial Courts respond to outright lies by the Division with the same outrage engendered by lies told by litigants? Shouldn’t we, as a society, be able to rely upon the representations of those in power, those entrusted with protecting our most valuable asset – i.e., children? If anything, shouldn’t there be some sanction for the agency, which is already gifted with the benefit of a presumed “high degree of reliability” per the Cope decision?

When members of the defense bar routinely hear of patterns of practice by the Division that contravene statutes, case law, court rules, administrative regulations, AOC policies, court orders and other legal mandates, we must not shy away from unveiling these atrocities for the trial Court’s consideration. Hopefully, armed with the H.R. case, we now have strong precedent to urge trial Courts not to look past the manipulations of this agency.

One can only hope that trial Courts begin to see how rampant the Division’s lies are … and begin to do something about it.

What a difference a year makes!


In litigation brought by the division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP)(formerly the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS)), one year is a very significant benchmark in the case. After one year in litigation, the court is required to conduct a permanency hearing and to approve a plan to achieve permanency for the child. That plan may include reunification with the parent, termination of parental rights followed by adoption, kinship legal guardianship with a relative, or one of three other alternatives. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.50.

Though there is no statutory requirement for litigation to last one year, anecdotal experience from child welfare attorneys supports that this is typical. Various, however, a requirement for a permanency hearing within one year pursuant to the a
Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).

Further, parent educational materials distributed in child welfare courts, provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), that the case should be resolved with reunification, if possible, within one year.

But should we accept the de facto presumption that the litigation must last a year? Does having a one-year “benchmark” allow the agency to justify its delay in implementing necessary services to achieve reunification? Does having a one-year benchmark encourage the agency to talk on additional requested services for family over the course of that year, knowing that the practice typically includes a one-year period of litigation? And because it is exceedingly rare that a court will not grant the agency its request for additional services, what is lost, really, by requesting more and more and more of a parent because the agency has one year to play with?

It is a dirty little secret of child welfare agencies that services are often provided to families solely for the purpose of meeting the statutory requirement down the line to terminate parental rights. Now that ASFA requires concurrent planning, the agency cannot take this “over servicing” approach with only those families anticipated to have termination in their future; it adopts this approach for all families.

The consequence of this “standard operating procedure” is that many families are simply tortured by a one-year entitlement by the agency to control its life, rather than a strategic, directed approach to help families and end litigation. It is true that many families achieve reunification before the end of litigation, as a parent may seek return of the child at any time, which shall be granted unless there is evidence of harm to the child’s health, safety or welfare. See, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.32(a). Yet, it is all too common that the division successfully opposes reunification upon the stated concern that a lapse of perfection upon reunification will only result in a subsequent removal.

This concern is not totally unwarranted. However, the one year benchmark is far too often used as a guillotine over families, rather than a tempered response to the circumstances presented to the court. Wow the benchmark appears to be here to stay, we should not accept that one year is a magic number that should guide most cases. Each case requires and deserves a case-by-case individual approach.

If you or someone you know is involved in child welfare litigation that appears to be dragging on needlessly, contact Paragano & Williams, LLC for assistance resolving your matter expeditiously.