MICHAEL JACOB VS. CAMDEN COUNTY AND COURIER POSTÂ (L-3983-15, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1813-15T4
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
T.F.,
Respondent-Appellant.
___________________________________________________________
Submitted April 3, 2017 – Decided April 27, 2017
Before Judges Haas and Currier.
On appeal from the Department of Children and
Families, Division of Child Protection and
Permanency.
T.F., appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joann
M. Corsetto, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant T.F. appeals from the final agency decision of
petitioner, New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency
(Division), that upheld the substantiated finding of abuse and
neglect. We affirm.
The Division received a referral that eight-year-old S.B.
(Susan)1 had told her classmates that her mother, T.F., had struck
her with a belt and phone cord. A Division caseworker went to the
school, where she spoke with Susan and observed the bruising on
her stomach, legs, back, and buttocks. Susan said she had been
whipped by her mother after receiving a bad grade on a test. She
also said it was not the first time her mother had hit her with
an object. When defendant arrived at the school that afternoon,
she admitted that she had beaten Susan for her bad behavior at
school, and that she had previously inflicted corporal punishment
on her daughter. The caseworker noted that defendant was
unremorseful and without empathy for her child.
As a result of the conceded beatings and observed bruising
on Susan, the Division determined the child was in immediate and/or
impending danger of serious harm. Susan's father agreed to care
for his daughter, and defendant acquiesced to a safety protection
plan, parenting skills training, and a psychological evaluation.
In February 2011, the Division presented a verified complaint
for the care, custody, and supervision of Susan. The family part
1 We use initials and pseudonyms for the purposes of
confidentiality.
2 A-1813-15T4
judge denied the complaint, finding that removal of the child was
not necessary to avoid a risk to Susan's health or safety. The
judge continued physical custody with Susan's father as she was
already living with him. He did not find the circumstances
required the removal of the child from her parents. Defendant was
granted liberal visitation as agreed to by both parents.
Defendant was subsequently charged with fourth-degree child
abuse, in violation of N.J.S.A. 9:6-1, as a result of these events.
She successfully completed the required parenting training program
and underwent a psychological evaluation.
In March, Susan's father moved out of state and custody of
the child was returned to defendant. Susan and defendant
participated in individual and family therapy; defendant also
attended anger management classes. The Division closed its file
in March 2012.
As a result of these events, defendant was substantiated for
physical abuse under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.11. Defendant appealed the
findings but was advised that in light of the ongoing family part
and criminal litigation concerning this matter, her appeal was not
yet ripe. Once the court cases were resolved, defendant could
pursue her appeal.
Defendant completed pre-trial intervention and her criminal
charge was dismissed and later expunged. In January 2015,
3 A-1813-15T4
defendant requested an administrative hearing to appeal the
substantiated finding of physical abuse. The Division submitted
a motion for summary disposition to which defendant responded; she
did not contest the underlying facts of the case. On October 7,
2015, the Division issued a final agency decision granting the
motion for summary disposition and affirming the substantiated
finding of physical abuse.
The standard of review that applies in an appeal from a state
agency decision is well established. "Judicial review of an
agency's final decision is generally limited to a determination
of whether the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
or lacks fair support in the record." Caminiti v. Bd. of Trs.,
Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 431 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div.
2013) (citing Hemsey v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys.,
198 N.J. 215, 223-24 (2009)). In reviewing an administrative
decision, we ordinarily recognize the agency's expertise in its
particular field. Ibid. We will not substitute our judgment for
the agency's even though we might have reached a different
conclusion. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011); see also
In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (discussing the narrow
appellate standard of review for administrative matters).
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c) provides in pertinent part the
definition of an abused or neglected child as follows:
4 A-1813-15T4
"Abused or neglected child" means a child less
than 18 years of age . . . whose physical,
mental, or emotional condition has been
impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming
impaired as the result of the failure of his
parent or guardian, as herein defined, to
exercise a minimum degree of care . . . by
unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be
inflicted harm, or substantial risk thereof,
including the infliction of excessive corporal
punishment; or by any other acts of a
similarly serious nature requiring the aid of
the court.
Excessive corporal punishment is child abuse. We addressed
when such punishment may be deemed excessive in DYFS v. K.A, 413
N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 204 N.J. 40 (2010).
We explained that "a single incident of violence against a child
may be sufficient to constitute excessive corporal punishment" and
advised that the circumstances presented in each case must be
examined in a determination of whether excessive corporal
punishment was used. Id. at 511-12. We confirmed again in DYFS
v. S.H., 439 N.J. Super. 137 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 222 N.J.
16 (2015), that an isolated incident of physical injury is
sufficient to establish abuse or neglect.
In her brief, defendant states that after learning that Susan
had misbehaved in school, she "[struck] [the child] once with a
phone cord then decided to use a belt because it . . . required
more force." Susan had numerous bruises on her body as a result
of the whipping.
5 A-1813-15T4
We are satisfied that the decision of the Division
substantiating defendant for physical abuse was supported by the
credible evidence presented to it. Defendant has never contested
the factual underpinnings of the incident; she only disagrees with
the substantiated finding. Her actions constituted a failure to
exercise a minimum degree of care in violation of N.J.S.A. 8:21-
(c)(4)(b), and therefore, we affirm the Division's decision.
Affirmed.
6 A-1813-15T4