Tag Archives: child

Who Causes the Harm?


In protracted DCPP litigation, there are often many twists and turns in the cases. Sometimes, the “non-offending parent” becomes the target of an investigation by the agency. This is common in cases where one parent is substantiated for abuse and the other parent is subsequently substantiated for “failure to protect” the children from the alleged abusive parent.

If children are in the custody of the alleged non-protective parent, any distress by the children is typically attributed to that parent. But is that truly the case?

Is it not harm in and of itself to have the child welfare agency and its many, many individuals (caseworkers, investigators, supervisors and liaisons), the law guardian’s office (with its many investigators and attorneys), parents attorneys and a judge or two, involved in the life of a child? If the child is struggling with the loss of one parent who is barred from access due to court orders in DCPP Court, does that parental absence not cause immediate harm and trauma to the child? Especially when the child knows the parent has not died but is simply not authorized by the court to see them?

And can we place upon the “non-offending” parent the burden of the children’s emotional stability, when it is the very existence of the “helpers” of the child welfare system that is increasing if not causing the distress in the child?

In my experience, these thorny issues are too amorphous for this to be determined with any degree of psychological certainty. Expert reports are obtained and testimony is provided, which amounts to little more than the “gut reaction” of the expert. Absent a smoking gun such as a child confessing that the “non-offending” parent is berating the child about his/her offending parent, the child’s emotional response are often the product of all that plagues him/her.

Sadly, those involved in the child welfare system often fall into one of two camps – i.e., the child-saver camp and the parent-defender can. Those in the former category would be inclined to believe that child distress is a product of nonsupport by the “non-offending” parent. Those in the latter category are more inclined to believe that the child’s distress is a product of the enormous, oppressive invasion of the child’s life by the child welfare system.

Whichever view is adopted, the opinions on this topic are too significant to be decided by “gut reactions”. That is exactly what happens day in and day out. Consequently, many practitioners advise parents whose spouse has been substantiated to either sever ties with that parent or at least down play the relationship to appease the players in this system who take a predatory stance when faced with a parent they feel is supportive of a parent found by a judge to be abusive.

This post presents no position on the issue, but simply provides food for thought for future consideration.

If you or someone you know is involved in the child welfare system as either a targeted parent or a non-offending parent, contact the Williams Law Group, LLC to schedule a consultation.

DYFS Cases name both Parents as Defendants


Parents often ask me why the non-offending parent is listed as a defendant when the State of New Jersey, vis-à-vis the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP), formerly known as the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), files a lawsuit in court. The answer is simple. Because the state is seeking relief against the parents, whether that parent has done anything wrong or not.

Usually, in these cases the division is looking for the court to order the parents to call operate with services for the child who has been allegedly abused or neglected. Both parents have a right to be heard and to oppose any such relief as to their child.

Of course, this raises an important irony. When the court has jurisdiction over the child, which occurs as soon as the division files an action, services are routinely ordered for the child. This may include evaluations, therapy, mentors, school assistance, Financial assistance, etc. If a parent were inclined to oppose such “services”, what would be the end result? With rare exception, the parent’s opposition would be noted, but not honored, and services would be ordered in any event.

We do have the recent case of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services vs. T.S., Which cautions the trial court against ordering services simply because they are “routinely ordered”; However, those services are related to the parent – not the child.

In reality, the state wants the parent to participate in the litigation – whether they are the cause of it or not – as they will be required to implement any services for the child, Including, for instance, transporting the child to therapy, assisting the child with any tutoring or mentoring that is provided for the child, giving background information to any professionals performing evaluations, etc. And, if nothing else, the non-offending parent will want to know what is being alleged as to his/her child.

Non-offending parents should use their participation in the litigation for its intended purpose of facilitating a resolution of issues impacting the child. For any litigation that follows the child welfare case, the parent will then be armed with information about the welfare of the child that may bare upon issues of custody, parenting time, and related issues.

DYFS/DCPP’s marriage to Supervised Visitation


Ever notice how every case filed by the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), n/k/a the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) kicks off with a Complaint and a request for supervised visitation? Does anyone ever question the need for supervision at the initial filing? Of course not, you may be thinking. After all, why would DYFS (DCPP) be involved with the family if there was no need to monitor the actions of the alleged child abusers, right?

Sadly, the allegations made in these cases often come partnered with the assumption that parental supervision is required. But is that always true? What about the case where a father is accused to acts of domestic violence against a mother in the presence of a child but never any infliction of harm against a child? Presumably if the “harm” to that child is witnessing domestic violence, how likely is that harm to reoccur if the parents are not together when in the presence of the child?

And what about cases in which a parent has a substance abuse problem, but the parent’s relatives all confirm that she has never used or abused substances in the presence of the children? Can that parent really not be trusted to have unsupervised dinner visits with the children, especially if she must blow into a breathing device installed on her vehicle to confirm she is “dry” before operating it?

How about the case where a step-parent is accused of being unduly harsh toward a step-child but no such allegation exists as to his natural children? Can he really not be trusted to be alone with his children against whom there is no allegation?

Unfortunately, the DYFS/DCPP “script” is to request supervision; however, the Division’s Field Operations Manual clearly provides that visitation is to be LEAST RESTRICTIVE option available to ensure child safety, and where supervision is requested, the rationale for the request must be set forth with specificity. DYFS rarely goes “off script”, and as a result, Superior Court judges rarely go “off script”.

But placing the impediment of plastic, short-term parental restriction upon a parent who is already being overwhelmed by the panoply of testimony, evaluations, monitoring and worse, usually does more harm than good in the “altruistic” world of social work. It creates barriers to collaboration between the State and the parent to remedy the harm alleged to impair parenting. And, isn’t that why the action is being filed in the first place?

As defense counsel, it is our job to argue against supervision. Never concede that supervised visitation is warranted on the facts presented. Be creative in fashioning the “least restrictive” alternative. Stop assuming that the Division will prevail in its quest for supervision, and perhaps, one day, it will not.