What New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. M.C. III Means for New Jersey Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

The 2010 New Jersey Supreme Court Decision Set Important Standards That Still Apply Today

Being involved in a child abuse and neglect case in New Jersey or having any dealings with the state's Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCP&P) – formerly known as the Division of Youth and Family Services – can be stressful and overwhelming. Emotions can run high in these situations, and serious matters such as child custody and parental rights are on the line. The outcome of any DCP&P matter can have long-lasting and potentially devastating effects on the lives of everyone involved.

The DCP&P process is complicated, and there's so much to know to be able to navigate it successfully and obtain the best possible outcome. In addition to laws that are on the books in New Jersey, decisions made by New Jersey courts help shape the state's laws and policies that pertain to child abuse, neglect, protection, and custody matters. Some court rulings are so influential that they set standards and define principles that New Jersey courts and the DCP&P follow years after the decisions are handed down.

One such case is the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. M.C. III, 2010 WL 1222160 (N.J.). It's a 2010 New Jersey Supreme Court abuse and neglect case that is still relevant to all New Jersey child abuse cases, and DCP&P matters today. Anyone who is involved with a child abuse, neglect, protection, or custody issue with the New Jersey DCP&P should be familiar with this case and the implications it can have on your specific situation.

New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. M.C. III: Child Abuse Allegations, Lower Court Findings, and Appeal

In September 2006, an emergency room physician at Cooper University Hospital in Camden examined a brother and sister, ages 15 and 13, respectively. The girl had tender ribs and abrasions behind her ear, and the boy had an injury to his right hand, scratches on his neck, and abrasions and swelling around his ribs.

Based on these injuries, the examining doctor contacted New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services to report what she suspected to be child abuse. A caseworker investigated the children's allegations that their father had caused their injuries during a physical altercation that ensued after an argument they had with their father about their computer usage.

At some point during the investigation, the emergency room physician filled out a form from the Division of Youth and Family Services describing the children's injuries. The doctor also included in the form her opinion that the children's injuries were consistent with an assault. Based on this form, the caseworker created a Screening Summary that summarized the facts, allegations, people involved, and other relevant information about the case.

The children were removed from their father's custody — which was awarded to him after he and the children's mother divorced — and an abuse and neglect complaint was filed against him.

At the fact-finding hearing, the Division offered fifteen exhibits into evidence. The defendant's attorney only objected to the admission of one of those exhibits, so that exhibit was excluded from the evidence. Defense counsel did not, however, object to any of the other exhibits, including the Screening Summary, so these other exhibits were all admitted into evidence.

The trial court based its decision on the evidence that was admitted and concluded that the father caused the injuries to his children and that the children were abused and neglected. A subsequent order granted custody of the children to their stepsister.

The father appealed the trial court's decision, and the Appellate Division reversed it. They concluded that even though the father's attorney did not object to the admission of the documents in question during the trial, the documents were, nevertheless, improperly admitted into evidence. The court said that the documents didn't comply with the fact-finding hearing's evidentiary rules, were capable of producing an “unjust result,” and that the trial court relied on these documents to make its decision.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey then reversed the Appellate Division's findings and, in its opinion, set a standard that still applies to New Jersey child abuse and neglect cases and DCP&P matters today.

The New Jersey Supreme Court's Decision in New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. M.C.III: Reversal of Appellate Division's Decision Based on Doctrine of Invited Error

In its reversal of the Appellate Division's opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court court invoked the “doctrine of invited error,” stating that the father couldn't argue about the admission of documents in his appeal when he explicitly agreed to their admission during the trial. The court stated that the doctrine of invited error exists to prevent a “disappointed litigant” from arguing after the fact about a course of action that didn't go as planned at trial.

The court also concluded that the trial court properly relied on documentary and testimonial evidence at trial and that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the father abused his children.

The court also stated that, even though the father may not have intended to harm his children, his actions were deliberate and intentional, and therefore the trial court's finding that he abused his children was proper. The fact that the father intentionally grabbed the children and disregarded the possibility that his conduct could result in injury to them was sufficient.

In its decision, the court also reviewed evidentiary requirements for child abuse fact-finding hearings and suggested that reports created by hospital physicians who are not directly employed by the DCP&P may be admissible because the physicians are likely considered “professional consultants” under the hearing's evidentiary rules.

Why the New Jersey Supreme Court's Decision in New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. M.C. III Is Important

The M.C. III case is important because the findings of the New Jersey Supreme Court in that case still apply to child abuse and neglect cases in New Jersey today. Specifically, the “doctrine of invited error” will prevent an adverse ruling against a defendant in a child abuse case from being reversed on appeal because the defendant did not object to the admission of certain evidence at trial.

In addition, documents created by hospital doctors who are not directly employed by the DCP&P who examine abuse victims may be admissible in child abuse fact-finding hearings because the doctors likely qualify as “professional consultants” within the meaning of the hearing evidentiary rules.

Also, according to the M.C. III case, a court may justifiably conclude that the defendant committed an act of child abuse even if the defendant did not intend to harm the child. The intent to physically touch a child without regard for the probability that the contact could result in injury to the child may be sufficient for a court to find that a defendant abused a child.

The Lento Law Firm Can Help Anyone Accused of Child Abuse or Neglect in New Jersey and Anyone Who Is Involved With a DCP&P Matter

As the M.C. III decision illustrates, New Jersey child abuse and neglect cases are complicated, and so much is at stake. It's crucial for anyone involved in any matter involving the DCP&P to be knowledgeable about New Jersey's laws, court decisions, and DCP&P processes and procedures in order to be able to mount a successful defense and obtain the best possible outcome.

And, as the M.C.III case shows, there's no room for mistakes – the “doctrine of invited error” that the New Jersey Supreme Court invoked in its decision means that there's no going back if the evidence is mistakenly or inadvertently admitted in a child abuse or neglect case.

The potential consequences of being accused of child abuse or neglect or being investigated by DCP&P are severe and can be devastating. They include the immediate removal of children from the home, getting dragged into protracted and expensive civil court proceedings, facing the possibility of supervised parenting, having your parental rights terminated, facing criminal child abuse charges, and more.

With so much at stake, anyone involved with a New Jersey child abuse or DCP&P matter needs an experienced legal team who is knowledgeable about New Jersey's laws, important New Jersey court cases like M.C.III, and the intricacies of the DCP&P process. Without such a team, critical mistakes can be made that can ruin lives and destroy families.

Attorney Joseph D. Lento and the Lento Law Firm Criminal Defense Team have years of experience defending clients in child abuse cases and DCP&P matters throughout New Jersey. Call The Lento Law Firm at 888-535-3686, or submit a confidential online consultation form to connect with the best Criminal Defense team in New Jersey.

​​​Contact The Lento Law Firm Today

When it comes to criminal defense cases, you need the right person in your corner. To learn more about how Mr. Lento can help you, call the Lento Law Firm today at 888-535-3686. or contact him online.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.