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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1001-17T3
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
J.S.,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________
Argued telephonically February 7, 2019 –
Decided May 30, 2019
Before Judges Fasciale and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Children
and Families, Division of Child Protection and
Permanency, Case Id No. 17126447.
Michael R. Ascher argued the cause for appellant
(Einhorn Harris Ascher Barbarito & Frost PC,
attorneys; Michael R. Ascher, on the briefs).
Peter Damian Alvino, Deputy Attorney General,
argued the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal,
Attorney General, attorney; Jason Wade Rockwell,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Peter Damian
Alvino, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant J.S.1 appeals from the October 6, 2017 final agency decision of
the Department of Children and Families (DCF), Division of Child Protection
and Permanency (DCPP), finding that allegations he abused his then seven-year-
old daughter S.S. were "not established." 2 The finding stemmed from an
allegation that defendant sexually abused S.S. by touching her vagina in an
inappropriate manner.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments for our
consideration:
POINT I
1
Pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d)(12), we use initials to protect the confidentiality
of the participants in these proceedings.
2
The agency's letter referred to N.J.A.C. 10:129-7.3(c)(3), which was later
recodified to Title 3A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. See 49 N.J.R.
98(a) (Jan. 3, 2017). In this opinion, we will refer to the current citation of the
rule at N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)(3). Because a "not established" finding is
considered purely investigatory, rather than adjudicatory in nature, and the
regulations do not permit an administrative hearing for a "not established"
finding, we "deem it a final decision subject to appellate review under Rule 2:2-
3(a)(2)." N.J. Dep't of Children & Families v. R.R., 454 N.J. Super. 37, 40 n.3
(App. Div. 2018).
A-1001-17T3
2
THE "NOT ESTABLISHED["] FINDING WAS THE
RESULT OF [DCPP'S] ARBITRARY,
CAPRICIOUS[,] AND UNREASONABLE ACTION
LACKING FAIR SUPPORT IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND REQUIRING
ITS REVERSAL AND THE ENTRY OF [AN]
"UNFOUNDED" FINDING[.]
POINT II
[DCPP'S] OWN POLICIES AND MANUAL
REGARDING ABUSE AND NEGLECT
INVESTIGATIONS DO NOT SUPPORT A FINDING
OF "NOT ESTABLISHED[.]"
POINT III
THE "NOT ESTABLISHED" FINDING INURES TO
THE DETRIMENT OF [DEFENDANT] IN FUTURE
CUSTODY MATTERS[.]
Having considered defendant's arguments in light of the administrative record
and the governing legal standards, we reverse.
DCPP's investigation began when it received a referral from Dr. Shannon
Albarelli, S.S.'s psychologist. After her parents divorced, S.S. began treatment
with Albarelli in November 2016 due to difficulty adjusting to the transition and
"feelings of sadness surrounding spending time at [defendant's] house." On July
7, 2017, Albarelli reported to DCPP that S.S. had disclosed to her during therapy
that on the morning of July 6, 2017, during an overnight visit with defendant,
A-1001-17T3
3
defendant "woke [S.S.] up[,] . . . put her in the shower[,]" and then "proceeded
to rub her private parts, (vagina)." Albarelli also stated that defendant reportedly
"looks at [S.S.'s] vagina [everyday] that she . . . visits," and "wakes [S.S.] up
before her [two brothers] and takes her to the shower." S.S.'s brothers, A.S.,
S.S.'s twin, and Ar.S., then three years old, accompanied S.S. during her visits
to defendant's home.
Based on Albarelli's referral, on July 7, 2017, DCPP workers interviewed
L.M., S.S.'s mother, who stated that S.S. had never disclosed any sexual abuse
to her. According to L.M., although they had joint custody and a court ordered
shared parenting plan, S.S. did not like to visit with defendant because he was
easily angered and difficult to talk to, which made S.S. feel "pushed around."
L.M. described defendant as a very intense individual who had problems
respecting the boundaries of others, a trait S.S. did not like. According to L.M.,
defendant also had anxiety issues and difficulty managing the children.3 When
asked if S.S. had ever disclosed any inappropriate behavior by defendant, L.M.
3
In January 2017, a prior allegation of child abuse involving the family was
deemed "unfounded." There, defendant had allegedly pulled A.S.'s wrist in
anger and the treating doctor reported the allegation to DCPP. According to
L.M., the incident demonstrated defendant's difficulty managing the children.
A-1001-17T3
4
responded that he gave S.S. "raspberries" on her chest under her clothing. 4 In a
later interview, L.M. explained that S.S. does not like to be touched, but
defendant was always hugging and giving her kisses.
DCPP workers also interviewed A.S., who "denied that [defendant] wakes
[S.S.] . . . up first or . . . takes her from [her bedroom]." According to A.S., "he
is the first to wake up at both of his homes." A.S. also denied that his siblings
spent any "alone time with [defendant,]" and "denied being afraid of anyone in
each of his homes" or feeling unsafe. Attempts to interview Ar.S. were
unsuccessful, given his age. DCPP promptly implemented a safety protection
plan, discontinuing S.S.'s visits with defendant pending completion of the
investigation, and requiring visits between defendant and his sons to be
supervised by defendant's current wife, P.S. Additionally, DCPP reported the
allegation to the Morris County Prosecutor's Office (MCPO), and was advised
not to interview S.S. or defendant while the criminal investigation was ongoing.
DCPP also referred S.S. for medical and psychological evaluations.
On July 7, 2017, MCPO Detective Hill interviewed S.S. about the
allegations. During the interview, S.S. informed Hill that despite having her
4
L.M. described "raspberries" as "blow[ing] in the children['s] stomach" and
"mak[ing] like a spit[t]ing/farting sound."
A-1001-17T3
5
own bathroom at defendant's house, sometimes, "[defendant] sees her 'naked in
the morning'" "while she is in the shower." S.S. explained that although "she
showers alone," defendant "turn[s] the water on to make sure it is not hot[,]"
checks on her while she showers to make sure "she is okay[,] and tells her to
hurry up." When Hill asked whether "[defendant] touches her while she is in
the shower," S.S. replied "[defendant] touches her on her 'toto' [(vagina in
Catalan language)]" and, after her shower, "puts cream on it when it is red."
When Hill "asked [S.S.] to describe how [defendant] applie[d] the
cream[,]" S.S. explained that "[defendant] makes his fingers go in circles" for
"about [one] minute[,]" and stated "[defendant] only touches the top of [the]
[t]oto and not inside." Using anatomical dolls, S.S. demonstrated for Hill "how
[defendant] rubbed her 'toto'" by "pull[ing] the underwear off the girl doll and
rub[bing] the top of [the] toto." However, contrary to her earlier statement, S.S.
said "sometimes [defendant] goes inside [the] toto." Additionally, while S.S.
denied "knowing how often this has occurred," she "also said that [defendant]
has not touched her toto more than once."
When asked whether defendant touched her elsewhere, S.S. "informed
[Hill] that [defendant] touched her boob five months ago, but then said it
occurred when she was a baby." Further, S.S. denied seeing "[defendant]
A-1001-17T3
6
touching himself" but disclosed that "she sometimes sees [defendant] pee and it
takes a really long time, but noted that this [was] not usual." She elaborated that
"she will be in the bathroom and [defendant] will come into the bathroom and
pee." After the interview, Hill conferred with L.M., who felt that S.S.'s
disclosure was "a little different than what she said earlier" to Albarelli.5
On July 25, 2017, child abuse pediatrician Julia DeBellis, M.D.,
conducted a medical evaluation of S.S. During the evaluation, S.S. disclosed
that "[defendant] touches [her] toto." When asked to elaborate, S.S. explained
that "almost each time she takes a shower[,]" defendant "come[s] into the
bathroom . . . , touches and pats her 'toto' and then leaves the bathroom." S.S.
reported that defendant "touches [her] toto" and tells her "to wash [it]" when
"[she] already did." Notably, S.S. made no mention of defendant applying cream
to her vagina, and, although S.S. denied any penile contact with defendant, she
"stated that she has seen [defendant's] 'private part'" because "he goes to the
bathroom and does [not] lock the door."
Based on her evaluation of S.S., DeBellis concluded that "[t]he general
physical and the anogenital examinations revealed no abnormalities." She found
5
According to Albarelli, L.M. was present when S.S. made the disclosure at the
end of their therapy session.
A-1001-17T3
7
that the examination "neither confirm[ed] nor denie[d] the possibility of sexual
abuse and should in no way discredit [S.S.'s] disclosure." She also noted that
"[a]t this point in time, it [was] unclear if the genital touching described was in
a caretaking manner or one that [was] abusive." Thus, "[t]here should be further
investigation into [S.S.'s] feeling about this activity and the need for this level
of child care." DeBellis recommended "on-going therapy to assess the
possibility of any emotional trauma that [S.S.] may have suffered from this event
and to better understand the nature of the genital touching that she described."
On the same date, psychologist Sarah Seung-McFarland, Ph.D., conducted
a psychosocial mental health evaluation of S.S. Initially, S.S. refused to discuss
defendant "touch[ing] her privates" when it "[was] red" and informed Seung-
McFarland that she had already told "1000 people!" S.S. only reported that
defendant never allowed her privacy, was "bothering [her,]" was "mean to
[her,]" and paid more attention to her brothers than to her.
However, after being prodded by L.M., S.S. reported the following to
Seung-McFarland:
[S.S.] informed that her father touches her in the shower
every visit since January. She stated it only occurs in
the shower. She noted her father comes in when the
shower is running and opens the shower door. She
further stated he says, "[S.S.], you[r] toto [is] red . . .
and says different things every time." She also stated
A-1001-17T3
8
he will tell her she needs to wash it after she already
washed it. When asked if she uses a sponge, she stated
she does[,] but her father does not. When asked what
she thinks about him doing it, [S.S.] stated it is
"unpolite" and she feels "bad" about it. Asked what
makes him stop, [S.S.] stated, "I have to wait until he
[is] done." [S.S.] denied that she needs help in the
shower.
S.S. stated further that defendant touched her on her "boob" "more than
once when she turned seven[,]" but "she forgot what [defendant] said when [he]
touched her there." She also said that her father and mother both put cream on
her privates, but she had no idea why. However, when questioned by Seung-
McFarland about the latter disclosure, L.M. denied putting cream on S.S.'s
privates, explaining that at her home, S.S. applies cream by herself if needed .
Based upon her evaluation, Seung-McFarland diagnosed S.S. with
"Adjustment Disorder with [A]nxiety[,]" "Parent-Child Relational Problem[s,]"
and "Disruption of Family by Separation or Divorce." She concluded:
With regard to the allegations, this evaluation cannot
determine with any degree of psychological certainty
whether or not [S.S.] was sexually abused by her father
as suggested. Nevertheless, [S.S.] reported that her
father touched her on her private area (e.g., toto) while
showering, made comments that it is red, and put cream
on it more than once. There are also reports that he sees
her naked, comes into the bathroom to pee when she is
there, and does "raspberries." At the very least, these
behaviors suggest inappropriate boundaries, and are
consistent with reports that [defendant] does not respect
A-1001-17T3
9
the children, is dismissive of them, and treats the twins
like babies.
Seung-McFarland noted that S.S.'s "poor mood regarding her father
suggests her problematic relationship with him is significant for her" and "[h]er
reported desire for her father's attention . . . along with her perception that he is
mean, yells, and lies suggests that [S.S.] has not been able to establish a
supportive and nurturing relationship with her father." Further, according to
Seung-McFarland, "[S.S.'s] reported irritability after visits with her father
further reflects her problematic adjustment to the family structure/dynamics."
Seung-McFarland recommended that S.S. should "continue to participate in
therapy to address her problematic relationship with her father, her recent
disclosure of inappropriate touching, her parent's divorce, and family
dynamics."
On August 29, 2017, Hill interviewed defendant about the allegations.
Defendant stated that on the morning of the alleged incident, July 6, 2017, he
was on a 6:00 a.m. flight to San Francisco for work and S.S. was still sleeping
when he left. Defendant admitted that "on one occasion [S.S.] told him that her
vagina area was itching." After "[h]e had [S.S.] point to where she was itching[,]
. . . he put [Desitin] cream on her vagina." According to defendant, "the second
time [S.S.] complained" of vaginal itching, "he gave her cream" and had her put
A-1001-17T3
10
the cream on herself. He denied ever "put[ting] his hand inside [S.S.'s] vagina"
and acknowledged that S.S. "is not a person who likes to be touched[,] . . .
hugged[,] [or] kiss[ed]."
Defendant explained further that A.S. and S.S. have been bathing by
themselves for about a year, but that he or his nanny would bathe Ar.S.
Defendant stated that "in the morning[,] he goes into [the bathroom] to set the
bath or shower temperature, while [S.S.] is taking off her pajamas preparing to
get in the bathroom." "[A]fterwards he goes [downstairs]." According to
defendant, when "[S.S.] is taking a shower[,] he will knock on the door to see
[i]f she is okay" as "knocking is a rule in his home." He also stated that he may
"yell" for her "to hurry up" if she is taking too long, and will enter the bathroom
"if she does [not] answer."
Defendant informed Hill that prior to the divorce, "his relationship with
[S.S.] was okay," but that "she is closer to her mother." He indicated that "[S.S.]
feels . . . he shows favoritism to [Ar.S.]" and "sometimes[,] when he goes to pick
up the children[,] [S.S.] wants to stay with her mother." However, once "she
gets to his home[,] she is fine." While "[h]e described his relationship with his
children as wonderful[,]" defendant acknowledged that his current wife was not
always "excited about being with the children." He stated that S.S. had
A-1001-17T3
11
"complained to her mother that his wife treats them different[ly] when he is not
there." He also reported that "[S.S.] sometimes likes to tell stories" and
"push[es] her limits with him."
Defendant was administered a polygraph exam, which he passed to Hill's
satisfaction. Thereafter, Hill informed DCPP that his office would not pursue
the matter further because, in his opinion, while "the incident happened," it was
not "sexual[] [in] nature." Following DCPP's investigation, which was detailed
in an investigation summary, DCPP also determined that while "the incident did
happen[], . . . there [was] insufficient documentation to support that it was in a
sexual manner." Based on this finding, DCPP determined that "[t]he allegation
of [s]exual [a]buse-[s]exual [m]olestation of [S.S.] . . . by [defendant] is [not]
[e]stablished. There is not a preponderance of evidence that [S.S.] is . . . abused
or neglected by definition, but evidence indicates that [S.S.] was harmed or
placed at risk of harm."
On October 6, 2017, DCPP mailed defendant its determination letter,
which was signed by the DCPP worker who conducted the field investigation
and the worker's supervisor. In addition to notifying defendant of the "[n]ot
[e]stablished" finding, the letter informed defendant that "[a] record of the
A-1001-17T3
12
incident [would] be maintained in [DCPP's] files" but would "not be disclosed
by [DCPP] except as permitted by N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a." This appeal followed.
The scope of our review is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194
(2011). In reviewing a final agency decision, we "must defer to an agency's
expertise and superior knowledge of a particular field[,]" Greenwood v. State
Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992), and "extend substantial deference
to an 'agency's interpretation and implementation of its rules enforcing the
statutes for which it is responsible' based on the agency's expertise." R.R., 454
N.J. Super. at 43 (quoting In re Freshwater Wetlands Prot. Act Rules, 180 N.J.
478, 489 (2004)).
"Thus, we are bound to uphold an agency's decision 'unless there is a clear
showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair
support in the record.'" Dep't of Children & Families, Div. of Youth & Family
Servs. v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294, 301-02 (2011) (quoting In re Herrmann, 192 N.J.
19, 27-28 (2007)). In applying that standard of review, our function is not to
substitute our judgment for that of the administrative agency. Barrick v. State,
218 N.J. 247, 260 (2014). "However, we are 'in no way bound by [an] agency's
interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue[,]'" T.B.,
207 N.J. at 302 (first alteration in original) (quoting Mayflower Sec. Co. v.
A-1001-17T3
13
Bureau of Sec. in Div. of Consumer Affairs of Dep't of Law & Public Safety, 64
N.J. 85, 93 (1973)), and "if an agency's statutory interpretation is contrary to the
statutory language, or if the agency's interpretation undermines the Legislature's
intent, no deference is required." Reilly v. AAA Mid-Atl. Ins. Co. of N.J., 194
N.J. 474, 485 (2008) (quoting In re N.J. Tpk. Auth. v. AFSCME, Council 73,
150 N.J. 331, 351 (1997)).
Defendant argues "the 'not established' finding was clearly arbitrary,
capricious[,] and unreasonable or lack[ed] fair support in the . . . record" because
the "investigation did not produce evidence indicating that S.S. was either
actually harmed or placed at risk of harm by [defendant's] conduct, which was
specifically alleged to be sexual in nature." According to defendant, instead,
through its experts, DCPP "was only able to conclude that there existed a
problematic relationship between S.S. and her father, arising from her parents'
divorce and the family dynamics." Thus, defendant continues, "[u]nder the
circumstances, the determination . . . should have been designated 'unfounded.'"
We agree.
A "not established" finding "is one of four outcomes [DCPP] may reach
after investigating an abuse or neglect allegation." R.R., 454 N.J. Super. at 40.
See N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)(1) to (4); Dep't of Children & Families v. D.B., 443
A-1001-17T3
14
N.J. Super. 431, 441-42 (App. Div. 2015) (discussing four-tier framework of
"substantiated," "established," "not established," and "unfounded" allegations).
"An allegation shall be 'not established' if there is not a
preponderance of the evidence that a child is an abused
or neglected child as defined in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21,[6] but
evidence indicates that the child was harmed or was
placed at risk of harm." N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)(3) . . . .
A parent is completely cleared of wrongdoing only if
the allegation is "unfounded," that is, "if there is not a
preponderance of the evidence indicating that a child is
an 'abused or neglected child' . . . and the evidence
indicates that a child was not harmed or placed at risk
of harm." N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)(4). The Division
must indefinitely retain on file the record of "not
established" findings. N.J.A.C. 3A:10-8.1(b). But,
records related to "unfounded" findings are generally
expunged. See N.J.A.C. 3A:10-8.1(a), -8.3.
[R.R., 454 N.J. Super. at 40-41 (footnote omitted).]
"As [DCF] explained in adopting the regulation, 'not established findings
are based on some evidence, though not necessarily a preponderance of
evidence, that a child was harmed or placed at risk of harm.'" Id. at 41 (quoting
45 N.J.R. 738(a) (Apr. 1, 2013) (response to Comment 86)). In this context,
evidence of "a child having been harmed or placed at risk of harm" is "a lesser
standard" than "the 'substantial risk of harm' or 'imminent danger' required to
6
Pertinent here, "'[a]bused or neglected child' means a child less than [eighteen ]
years of age whose parent or guardian . . . commits or allows to be committed
an act of sexual abuse against the child[.]" N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(3).
A-1001-17T3
15
establish abuse or neglect under [N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21]." Id. at 42. "Notably,
although the regulation utilizes a passive construction—'was harmed or was
placed at risk of harm'—the apparent intent is to attribute the harm or the
placement at risk of harm to a particular perpetrator." Id. at 43.
Notwithstanding our deferential standard of review, we are constrained to
reverse because the finding that S.S. was harmed or placed at risk of harm by
defendant lacked fair support in the investigatory record compiled by DCPP.
The crucial question is whether there was any evidence that defendant harmed
or placed S.S. at risk of harm in relation to "[t]he allegation of [s]exual [a]buse-
[s]exual [m]olestation." While DCPP concluded that "the incident did
happen[,]" which we presume refers to the incident in which defendant admitted
putting cream on S.S.'s vagina when she complained of vaginal itching, 7 DCPP
also concluded that defendant's affirmative act was not sexual in nature.
Nonetheless, DCPP concluded that defendant harmed or placed S.S. at risk of
harm without articulating the basis for that conclusion. In fact, the investigat ory
record supports a contrary conclusion because after finding the evidence of
7
Our presumption is based on the language in the investigation summary under
the section entitled "[f]indings." The perfunctory letter served on defendant
advising him of the outcome of DCPP's investigation provided no information
about the evidence relied upon to support the finding.
A-1001-17T3
16
sexual abuse inconclusive, neither expert determined that S.S. was harmed or
placed at risk of harm as a result of "the incident." Instead, DeBellis
recommended "on-going therapy to assess the possibility of any emotional
trauma that [S.S.] may have suffered from this event" and Seung-McFarland's
diagnosis of S.S. related to S.S.'s "problematic relationship with her father," her
"parent's divorce," and her "family dynamics." Conspicuously absent from
Seung-McFarland's diagnosis was any condition related to sexual abuse.
Because we conclude DCPP "erred in finding the allegation was 'not
established,' [DCPP] shall deem the allegation to be 'unfounded' and treat the
records accordingly." Id. at 48. Based on our decision, we need not address
defendant's remaining arguments, other than to point out that we reach this result
mindful that a "not established" finding "still permanently tars a parent with a
finding that there was something to the allegation." Id. at 39. While a "not
established" finding is purely investigative in nature and is not made public
through inclusion of the perpetrator's name on the Central Registry or during a
Child Abuse Record Information (CARI) check, the permanent retention of "not
established" findings means that records continue to be subject to disclosure in
A-1001-17T3
17
a host of situations. See N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b).8 Given the nature of the
allegation in this case, we agree with defendant that such disclosure "inures to
[his] detriment."
Reversed.
8
For example, since they are not subject to expungement, the Division's
"records," "information," and "reports of findings" of a "not established"
determination would be accessible upon written request to "[a]ny person or
entity mandated by statute to consider child abuse or neglect information when
conducting a background check or employment-related screening of an
individual employed by or seeking employment with an agency or organization
providing services to children[.]" N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(13).
A-1001-17T3
18
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ETC. VS. J.S. (DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
Combined Opinion