Tag Archives: New Jersey

Happy New Year from NewJerseyDYFSdefense.com!


As we say goodbye to 2012, we here at New Jersey DYFS Defense want to take some time to reflect on where we have been and where we are going.

In April 2010, NewJerseyDYFSdefense.com was launched by our founder, Allison C. Williams, Esq. Ms. Williams created this site to serve as a portal of information for attorneys who represent parents in child welfare matters involving the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP), formerly known as the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). The site became an invaluable resource for the bar, housing periodicals and scholarly articles published by Ms. Williams over the years.

Then in 2011, Ms. Williams began to see a need to expand the reach of our site. Members of the public sought legal advice, information and guidance on how to defend against actions brought by the State, as well as how to handle agency investigations, negotiate case plan and navigate services – either prior to, during or after litigation. As more and more individuals sought guidance, Ms. Williams began to shift her focus from making the site’s invaluable information accessible, to making herself available for consultation and representation.

Now, in 2012, NewJerseyDYFSdefense.com has become an entity unto itself. Ms. Williams posts content about this obscure and complicated area of law including social commentary, legal analysis and practice pointers not designed to serve as legal advice. As a result, NewJerseyDYFSdefense boasted record volume, averaging HUNDREDS of site hits per day. Ms. Williams’ career has blossomed.

In 2012, she became the first African American attorney to gain Fellowship in the New Jersey Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. She was appointed to a New Jersey Supreme Court Committee – the Board on Attorney Certification Matrimonial Committee. Ms. Williams also took the helm as the Chair of the Certified Attorneys Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association.

These accomplishments, while impressive, have meant the most to Ms. Williams in one key area of her practice — i.e., her ability to marshal these efforts to continue to help families embroiled in litigation against the State of New Jersey. As a thought leader in this area of the law, NewJerseyDYFSdefense.com has been cited by the media in evaluating the defense position in matters before the New Jersey Supreme Court. And, most recently, Ms. Williams was recognized as a thought leader when invited to appear on the Katie Couric show to blog on the topic of parents falsely accused of child abuse.

We envision even greater accomplishments in 2013. It is only through zealous advocacy, vocal and visible debate on child welfare topics, participation in the legislative process where these matters are implicated and service to the profession through aggressive advocacy and caring for clients that we will be able to change the Child Welfare system for the betterment of families in New Jersey and society as a whole.

We hope you will continue to post your comments, visit the site for updates on this area of the law and contact us with any questions, concerns or requests for representation.

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.

Spanking + Accidental Injury = Child Abuse


When parents ask, “Is it ‘child abuse’ to spank my child”, the answer on paper is no. New Jersey prohibits “excessive” corporal punishment, thereby clearly permitting corporal punishment that is not excessive. See, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.A., 413 N.J. Super. 504, 510-11 (App. Div. 2010).

However, the Appellate Division’s interpretations of the K.A. case, the first published opinion to provide a framework to evaluate conduct and consequences that will render corporal punishment to be “excessive”, clearly show that our courts have little to no tolerance for parents who accidentally “injure” a child during the course of a spanking. The most recent unreported decision that demonstrates this point is New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. R.S., A-0074-11T4 (OAL Docket No. AHU 09-1698).

In R.S., the grandmother of a five year old child spanked him on the behind and legs with a belt due to the child’s aggressive behavior toward his teacher. During the course of the spanking, the child squirmed and the belt accidentally hit the child in the face, causing a mark. The Appellate Division concurred with DYFS that this constitutes child abuse, calling the spanking “willful and wanton” misconduct, i.e., reckless.

What made this spanking “reckless”, rather than merely “negligent”? The grandmother should have foreseen that the child would attempt to evade the spanking because he had recently gotten into trouble at school for running away from his teacher. Applying this standard, any child who does not passively and peacefully accept a spanking – i.e., the children who likely need the discipline the most – cannot be spanked absent a finding that the “perpetrator” was “reckless” for using this form of discipline.

The Appellate Division also considers the use of the belt to be of significance. In K.A., the mother balled up her fist and punched her child repeatedly in anger and frustration. This form of discipline was merely “negligent” because it did not cause a visible mark and was considered an “ill-conceived impulse”. Yet, a grandparent who makes a conscious decision to obtain a belt and administer discipline is said to have assaulted the child.

The age of the child was also a distinguishing factor. In K.A., the child was age 8. The Appellate court in R.S. also mentions the P.W.R. case involving a slap in the face of a 16 year old stepchild. Apparently, one should anticipate that a 5 year old will seek to avoid discipline – i.e., squirm when spanked – but that same expectation does not attend to a rebellious teenager.

Perhaps the ruling in K.A. would have been different had the mother taken time to obtain a belt to spank the child on the legs – a clear no-no – rather than simply exploding with multiple punches to the shoulder – a area much closer to the child’s face, the area of concern in this R.S. case.

I speak somewhat tounge-in-cheek to illustrate this point. In reality, spanking occurs in households across New Jersey. What distinguishes one spanking from another when determining if corporal punishment is “excessive” varies from case to case, but generally, these guidelines apply:

1. If you spank, better to use a hand than an object.

2. Spanking is better left to severe mis-behavior – not your run-of-the-mill unruliness, lack of respect, non-compliance or impulsivity seen in children.

3. Try NEVER to leave a mark, bruise, cut, welt, depression, or redness – no matter how faint, no matter how inadvertently caused, no matter where located.

4. If ANY mark is left, better left on lower extremities than near the face.

5. If the child is seen for medical treatment — even if only when sought by DYFS — the child’s report of pain will be considered an additional harm in and of itself.

(This is akin to a judge relying upon a child’s report of feeling “sad” when they overhear parents’ arguing to support a finding that the child’s emotional state is “impaired” by parental conduct. Any discomfort or unpleasantness experienced by a child can and will be used against the parent to bolster a finding of abuse.)

So, the best advice for parents in New Jersey is simply do not spank… or if you do, make sure no marks can prove than you did.

Life (and the law) would be much clearer if the New Jersey legislature would enact legislation banning spanking. Whether we agree with that policy or not, it would provide parents with clarity in terms of what can and cannot be done to modify children’s behavior – rather than causing our judiciary to impute far-reaching assumptions to parents (e.g., that a child will squirm and likely be hit with a belt in his face rather than his legs because he once ran away from a teacher when being disciplined) as a means to qualifying their conduct as “reckless” rather than merely “negligent”.

Allison C. Williams, Esq. to Present a CLE on Confidential DYFS Records


New Jersey, among other states, requires licensed attorneys to attend a certain number of hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs every two years. Many bar associations and private companies provide these programs; however, the largest provider in the state is the New Jersey Institute of Continuing Legal Education (www.njicle.com).

On Monday, November 12, 2012, Allison C. Williams, Esq. will be presenting for NJICLE in the Annual Hot Tips for Family Lawyers CLE. The Hot Tips CLE includes a wealth of information from 40 presenters, providing practice pointers for attorneys addressing a wide array of topics. Ms. Williams will be presenting on DYFS issues – specifically, how to gain access to confidential records maintained by the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), now known as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP).

Provided to each attendee at the CLE presentation will be a comprehensive book of materials containing the article authored by Ms. Williams. That article will be available here on NewJerseyDYFSdefense.com in the upcoming weeks. Check back for a copy of the article and for more valuable information all about defense of parents in DYFS/DCPP matters.

Heightened Burden to Terminate Parental Rights of a Teen Parent


The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division has provided trial Courts with guidance vis-a-vis an analytical framework to evaluate the State’s efforts to terminate the parental rights of a teen parent. In the New Jersey Div. of Youth and Fam. Svcs. v. L.J.D., the Court established a “heightened burden” for guardianship matters involving teens. This “special circumstance” of teen parenthood requires “services to aid the development of the child-parent’s maturation” and likely necessitates extending reunification efforts beyond the twelve-month timeframe mandated by N.J.S.A. 30:4D-61.2(a) and N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.54(b). These are important guideposts to evaluate future TPR cases involving teen parents.

This 55-page Decision, authored by Judge Lihotz, raises many questions, not the least of which is the appropriateness of “services” offered by the agency to parents from whom children have been removed. In this case, the parent argued that services were not appropriate because the Division did not provide one last service – a Mommy & Me program – that may have been sufficient. The Court rejected this argument – not based upon the program proposed, but based upon the volume of “services” that otherwise were not utilized effectively by the parent.

This demonstrates the need for parent-advocates to oppose the routine referrals made for services when those services are not likely to benefit the parent and child. Services should not be rejected out of hand; however, if the only conceivable benefit to a parent in a particular service is to aid the Division is increasing its list of “services” offered to meet its “reasonable efforts” mandate, the service should be opposed.

Each offered “service” should be evaluated. Ask for Resumes of Service Providers. Request detailed information about the program guidelines. If the program is geared toward substance abuse, and the parent’s primary issue is psychological disorder, oppose this service being required of the parent. Or, at the very least, oppose the service being included in the list of the Division’s “reasonable efforts” to reunify. In all litigation, cases are won and lost on the details. Child welfare cases are no different. Make your record in these cases by holding the Division to its burden – whether it be the “usual” burden or the heightened burden of L.J.D.

Allison C. Williams, Esq. becomes a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers


Allison C. Williams, Esq., Founder of newjerseyDYFSdefense.com, has just been bestowed the esteemed honor of Fellowship in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML). Allison has devoted her career to the practice of family law. However, what makes her unique is that she focuses her practice on the litigation of Child Welfare Law matters – custody and parental access issues against the State of New Jersey. The Academy is an elite organization, with only about 1600 members worldwide. To learn more about the Academy, visit the organization’s website page at: http://www.aaml.org/.

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers was founded in 1962, by highly regarded domestic relations attorneys “To provide leadership that promotes the highest degree of professionalism and excellence in the practice of family law.” There are currently more than 1600 Fellows in 50 states.

The Academy Fellows are highly skilled negotiators and litigators who represent individuals in all facets of family law. These areas include divorce, annulment, prenuptial agreements, postnuptial agreements, marital settlement agreements, child custody and visitation, business valuations, property valuations and division, alimony, child support and other family law issues.

To be represented by a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers is to be represented by a leading practitioner in the field of family law. The 1600 AAML Fellows across the United States are generally recognized by judges and attorneys as preeminent family law practitioners with a high level of knowledge, skill and integrity. Academy Fellows enjoy a reputation for professionalism, competence and integrity.

Allison certainly meets these criteria. Congratulations, Allison, on your accomplishment!

Can I sue DYFS?


Parents often wonder if they can file a lawsuit against the Department of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP), formerly known as the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). A simple Google search will locate many websites devoted to the goal of “suing DYFS”. Does this really happen? How often? And, who is the prevailing plaintiff when battling the state of New Jersey over its flawed child protection agency?

Unfortunately, only in very limited circumstances can a parent sue DYFS for its often ill-conceived interference in family life. DYFS caseworkers are afforded immunity when performing work in their official capacity as employees of the state. Only when conduct is performed outside the scope of their broad-ranging job duties, or when action is taken that can be considered tortious, may an employee be subject to civil penalties.

Unfortunately, much bad behavior is tolerable when acting under the guise of “child protection”. Perhaps this is because our society feels a moral imperative to protect those who cannot protect themselves. But, does state interference truly prevent and/or remediate harm to children? Or is it more often the case that state involvement causes more harm than good?

To be certain, many families require state assistance in order to function minimally and to preserve their families. However, the vast overreaching of many caseworkers and investigators call into question the legitimacy of those well intentioned, dedicated social workers who are truly desirous of preventing out-of-home placement and keeping families together through the provision of services and proper case management.

As is often the case, it may be that the only way to effectuate change in the system is to initiate litigation and bring the problems to the forefront. Only when we begin to see the evisceration of families as a societal problem, and not just a poor person’s problem, will families in New Jersey truly be safe from obtrusive government intervention.

What’s In A Name: DYFS becomes DCPP


Never one to be labeled stagnant, our Child Welfare agency in New Jersey, formerly known as the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), will now be known as the Department of Children Protection and Permanency (DCPP).  What does this means for those of us in the trenches?  And most importantly, what does this mean for the families of New Jersey?

A change in an agency name may signify a change in perspective – perhaps, a change in the objectives that will be pursued.  But, this may or may not be a good thing.  The prior name encompassed both Youth and Family.  Youth, i.e., Children, came first, but linked to Youth were their families.  Oftentimes, parents ask why DYFS is only concerned about the “youth” and not the “family”.  One can only imagine how that query will fester now that “Family” is taken out of the name altogether.

Child Welfare Advocates may posit that DYFS was always directed, first and foremost, toward “Child Protection and Permanency”, so codifying those goals in the agency name makes sense.  However, this position overlooks the reality for many families involved with the child welfare agency. 

When the State steps in, accuses parents of wrongdoing, critiques every aspect of their lives and their very being, sometimes removing their children from their care, many times restricting their access to their children, parents’ responses often range from Fight to Flight, long before submission emerges.  At the inception of the case, the child welfare advocate many times engenders a sense of helplessness in the parent that causes the parent to obfuscate issues in defensiveness, to such an extent that feigned concerns by the agency become as real in the eyes of the Court as the legitimate concerns that may, or may not, rise to the level of abuse or neglect of children.  When that occurs, the antagonistic relationship between the parent and the agency becomes yet another obstacle to be overcome by the parent in order to achieve reunification.  Yet, when this process of overcoming takes longer than a year, the State may proceed with an action to terminate parental rights.

Parents, quite justifiably, fear the agency.  Its involvement signifies the beginning of a very short (1 year) journey toward eliminating lifelong problems that took decades to present.  Met with this nearly impossible standard, families can be eviscerated.  Parents realize their ill-fated circumstances through all contacts with the agency – even by seeing its name and all that its name represents.

Do we really want “Permanency” (often equated with anti-reunification) to be the symbol of New Jersey’s Child Welfare agency?  Should “Family” have been removed from the name of the agency charged with “rehabilitating and improving family life N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.50(e)”?