Tag Archives: “social work”

DYFS Lawyer: All Lawyers are not Created Equal


When a parent is accused of abuse or neglect, or faces the most severe life consequence of termination of parental rights, a lawyer with expertise in the field of child welfare law is vital to parent defense. Many lawyers advertise that they are capable of adeptly handling a DYFS matter. Some are correct. Unfortunately, many more are not.

DYFS litigation is imbued with complexities that transcend basic family law. This area of litigation requires an intimate familiarity with agency law and procedure, Superior Court law and procedure, and the intersection of the two. It requires an understanding of social work, psychology, psychiatry, mental health generally and medical conditions. It requires an understanding of the Rules of Court and Rules of Evidence, many of which differ from those applicable to matrimonial and family law. It requires an intimate familiarity with two key statutes defining abuse, neglect and parental unfitness, and their subparts. Few attorneys have this familiarity.

Many parents seek out an attorney who is skilled in the field of family law. One way of determining if a practitioner is skilled in family law is by seeking those who have been Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Law Attorney. While these practitioners are deemed competent in the field of family law, they are not necessarily so in the field of Child welfare law. To become certified, one must pass an examination created by the Board on Attorney Certification. This examination does not include any material covering child welfare law topics.

Choosing an attorney is an important step in the reunification and sustenance of families involved in the child welfare system. Parents should be careful not to choose a lawyer simply because they are a skilled family law practitioner or, even worse, simply because they advertise that they are a “DYFS Lawyer“.

If a parent is seeking representation by an attorney with the skills, reputation and knowledge needed to help adeptly navigate the child welfare system, please contact Allison C. Williams, Esq. for a consultation.

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.