A.P. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0541-18T3
A.P.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES,
DIVISION OF FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent-Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted February 3, 2020 – Decided February 20, 2020
Before Judges Geiger and Natali.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Human
Services, Division of Family Development, Agency
Docket No. C100905015.
A.P., appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Arundhati Mohankumar, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner A.P. appeals from the September 6, 2018 final agency decision
of respondent New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family
Development (DFD), which affirmed the determination of Ocean County Board
of Social Services (Board) to terminate her emergency assistance (EA) benefits
in the form of motel placement as emergency temporary shelter. We affirm.
In March 2018, the Board provided EA benefits to A.P. by placing her in
a Seaside Heights motel. Her placement was conditioned on compliance with a
service plan in which she agreed to abstain from using drugs or alcohol and to
attend a substance abuse/behavioral health initiative program (SAI/BHI). A.P.
also acknowledged that she was not to allow any unauthorized individuals to
occupy her room without prior authorization from the Board.
A.P. missed a rescheduled drug screening appointment because she was
hospitalized. She advised her Board social worker of that fact but failed to
inform the coordinator at her SAI/BHI program, which closed its file as a result.
Shortly thereafter, on May 1, 2018, the Board terminated A.P.'s benefits
claiming that A.P. failed to comply with the terms of the service plan. A.P.
appealed the Board's decision and the matter was transmitted to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) for a fair hearing as a contested case. The Board
A-0541-18T3
2
continued A.P.'s benefits during the pendency of the appeal of the May 1, 2018
termination.
The Board thereafter moved A.P to a motel in Neptune on May 17, 2018.
A.P. signed two service plans related to her stay at that temporary shelter, one
in April 2018 and a second in May 2018, which required her, among other
conditions, to participate in substance abuse counseling, remain drug and
alcohol free, and to comply with the rules of the shelter. A.P. also understood
that she was not permitted to have unauthorized visitors in her room. In this
regard, both the April and May 2018 service plans stated:
YOUR EA-TS/TRA APPROVAL IS FOR YOU
ALONE, ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS
STAYING IN YOUR RESIDENCE WITHOUT
WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM [THE BOARD] IS
GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF YOUR
EA/TRA BENEFITS.
On May 20, 2018, the Board learned that A.P. permitted an unauthorized
visitor to stay in her room overnight, which A.P. admitted. Employees at the
Neptune motel also advised the Board that A.P. had a "regular hotel guest" who
stored his bike under the stairs which "creat[ed] a problem."
The Board terminated A.P.'s EA benefits on May 25, 2018, effective June
9, 2018, because she failed to comply with the terms of her service plans. The
Board also imposed a six-month period of ineligibility for EA benefits.
A-0541-18T3
3
A Board social worker later visited A.P. at the Neptune motel and
observed that A.P. placed a lock on the door of her room. The motel maintained
that A.P.'s actions were "illegal . . . [and] against [the] fire code" and requested
that the Board remove A.P. and place her in a different temporary residence.
A.P. appealed the May 25, 2018 termination. At the fair hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) addressed both A.P.'s appeal of the Board's
May 1, 2018 and May 25, 2018 determinations. The ALJ considered
documentary evidence and the testimony of a Board social worker, a Board
human services specialist, and A.P.1
The ALJ issued an initial decision on July 27, 2016 and determined as to
the May 1, 2018 termination that A.P. established good cause to justify missing
her scheduled appointment with her SAI/BHI counselor and her termination of
benefits on that basis was improper. With regard to the May 25, 2018
termination, however, the ALJ concluded A.P. impermissibly allowed an
overnight visitor in her room without prior authorization thereby violating her
service plans. The ALJ relied upon statements contained in the
contemporaneous police report and noted A.P.'s admission in her testimony that
1
The transcript of the hearing is not contained in the record on appeal. No party
has disputed, however, the proofs presented at the hearing or the ALJ's detailed
account of the witnesses' testimony.
A-0541-18T3
4
she permitted a visitor to stay overnight. The ALJ accordingly affirmed the
Board's May 25, 2018 termination of A.P.'s EA benefits and its six-month period
of disqualification from EA benefits.
A.P. filed exceptions and on September 6, 2018 the Director of the DFD
reviewed the record and issued a final determination that adopted the ALJ's July
27, 2018 decision. The Director also concluded that A.P. "violated the motel's
safety policy by placing an unauthorized lock on her motel room door," contrary
to N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.3(c)(5). The Director affirmed the ALJ's determination that
a six-month period of EA ineligibility was warranted.
Our scope of review of an administrative agency's final determination is
limited. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). "[A] strong presumption of
reasonableness attaches" to the agency's decision. In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super.
429, 437 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App.
Div. 1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994)). The burden is upon the appellant to
demonstrate grounds for reversal. McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J.
Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002).
"[A]n appellate court is 'in no way bound by the agency's interpretation of
a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue . . . .'" In re Carter, 191
N.J. 474, 483 (2007); see also Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of
A-0541-18T3
5
Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). To that end, we will "not disturb an
administrative agency's determinations or findings unless there is a clear
showing that (1) the agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by
substantial evidence." In re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate
of Need, 194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008).
EA benefits in the form of emergency shelter and housing assistance are
administered at the county level consistent with DFD's supervision and relevant
regulations. See N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.3(a). Requests for emergency housing
assistance are restricted to individuals "in a state of homelessness or imminent
homelessness due to circumstances beyond their control" or if the individual is
homeless due to the "absence of a realistic capacity to plan in advance for
substitute housing." N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.1(c).
Recipients of EA must sign a service plan that identifies the "mandatory
and non-mandatory activities as determined by the Board." N.J.A.C. 10:90-
6.6(a). If an individual, without good cause, is non-compliant with the terms of
a service plan, the Board can terminate EA benefits for a period of six months.
Ibid. Further, an individual may be terminated from receiving EA benefits for
A-0541-18T3
6
six months for violating the health and safety policies of a placement, such as
the Neptune motel at issue here. N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.3(c)(5).
Here, A.P. admitted to permitting an overnight guest in her Neptune motel
room contrary to her service agreement and she was no longer entitled to receive
EA benefits. The Director also concluded that she was ineligible for EA benefits
because she placed a lock on the door, contrary to motel policy and N.J.A.C.
10:90-6.3(c)(5). We are satisfied that the Director's decision was supported by
substantial credible evidence in the record and it is not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Affirmed.
A-0541-18T3
7