### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 2639

- 18T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF Y OUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, 1
Plaintiff ,

v . R.C. and Y.C., Defendants

- Respondents

.

__________________________

Argued telephonically June 2, 2020

– Decided July 7, 2020 Before Judges Yannotti and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket No. FN

- 15

- 0158

- 10. Larry S. Loigman argued the cause for appellant E.C.

1 The D ivision is now known as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. See L. 2012, c. 16 (eff. June 29, 2012) (amending N.J.S.A. 9:3A

10(b) )

. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not " constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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

- 3.2 A

- 2639

- 18T2 R.C. , respondent, argued the cause pro se.
PER CURIAM E.C. appeals from an order entered by the Family Part on February 8 , 2019, which denied his application to e njoin R.C. from disseminating or disclosing certain records from this ca se. We affirm. We briefly summarize the relevant facts and procedural history, based on the limited record provided on this appeal. E.C. was born in 1993 and defendants are his par ents

. In March 2010, E.C. fled from his family home. He apparently cla imed that defendants R.C. and Y.C

. had abused him. In March 2010, Larry S. Loigman (Loigman) , E.C. ' s attorney, reported the alleged abuse
to the Division of Youth and Family Services (the Division)

. The Division investigated the report and in April 201 0, filed a complaint against defendants seeking , among other relief, custody, care and supervision of
E.C. The matter was docketed as FN

- 15

- 0158

- 10. The trial court apparently grante d the application. Thereafter, the court entered an order dated April 2 6 , 2010 , which continued E.C. in the Division ' s custody, care and supervision. The court appointed a l aw g uardian for E.C. and allowed Loigman to participate in the
matter as a frie nd of court. The court entered another orde r dated July 30, 2010,3 A

- 2639

- 18T2

which returned legal and physical custody of E.C. to defendants. The order stated that: the Division had determined that the allegations against defendant s were unfounded and a fact

- finding hearing would not take place; Loigman was

r elieved of his responsibility as friend of the court; and the Division shall arrange for the family to receive therapy. The court dismissed the action ; however, the order stated that the Division would keep its f ile open to provide services to the family f or reunification. On August 9, 2010, the court entered an order reopening the case. The order stated that defendants would continue to have legal and physical custody of the minor child. The court again appo inted a law guardian for the child. The order stated that " [w]ho mever " had information about E.C. ' s " whereabouts " should immediately disclose that information to the court.
In November 2010, Loigman filed a complaint in the Family Part on behalf of E.C. alleging abuse and neglect. The court entered an order dated
De cember 20, 2010, dismissing the complaint without prejudice because the complaint did not name any defendants. Loigman also filed an application for
E.C. ' s emancipation, which the court dism issed. In April 2011, Loigman filed a notice of claim on behal f of E.C. pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1

- 1 to 12

- 3 . The notice indicated that E.C.4 A

- 2639

- 18T2

intended to pursue claims against the Ocean County Prosecutor ' s Office, the New Jersey Depa rtment of Human Services, the Office of the Public Defender,
the Family Part judge who handled the abuse and neglect proceeding , and other unknown s tate agencies and employees who allegedly harmed E.C. On August 1, 2012, the Family Part entered an order d ismissing this
action. It appears that E .C. was no longer a minor and he did not wish to have the Division provide him with any additional services. In January 2013, Loigman filed a motion in this action on behalf of E.C. seeking, among other things, sa nctions against R.C. for alleg edly dissem inating the Division ' s confidential records . He sought the return of all such records and an injunction against further dissemination of the records. The Law Division judge entered an order dated February 7, 2013, denying the motion. The order stated, a mong other things, that Loigman could use the Division ' s records in defense of an ethics complaint that had been filed against him, subject to a protective order entered in th at proceeding. The order also
stated th at any party who wanted to use any other Division records or documents not currently in his or her possession shall make an appropriate application to the court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6

- 8.10.5 A

- 2639

- 18T2

In June 2016, R.C. filed a legal malpractice action against Loi gman in the
Law Division, which was docke ted under OCN

- L

- 1625

- 15. It appears that Loigman filed a motion seeking, among other thing s, transfer of venue or, in the alternative, the judge ' s recusal. The court entered an order dated October 15, 2019, denyin g the motion. Loigman filed a motion for leave to appeal. On November 22, 2019, the Law Division judge filed an amplification of his reasons for the October 15, 2019 order. The judge noted that in his motion, Loigman had argued that the judge had erron eously permitted R.C. to attach, refer to , or otherwise disseminate confidential Division reports and Family Part orders regarding alleged abuse of E.C. The judge stated that he had barred the use of electronic filing of all pleadings and correspondence to ensure confidentiality of the records of the Family Part proceedings. The judge had also required the appearance by the Division ' s counsel before issuing any order concerning the dissemination of Family Part records. The judge stated that " [t]he vast majority of records required for the pursuit of [R.C. ' s] claim were obtained by the parties prior to and outside of the current litigation . . . . " On January 23, 2019, Loigman filed a motion in this case on E.C. ' s behalf to enforce litigant ' s rights

. He sought an order barring R.C. " from disclosing6 A

- 2639

- 18T2

information from [certain Division] and [f]amily [c]ourt files. " The Division did not take a position on the motion. On January 29, 2019, the Family Part judge entered an order denying E.C. ' s mo tion.
At L oigman ' s request, the judge thereafter issued a statement of reasons and amended order dated February 8, 2019, which again denied the motion

. In the statement of reasons, the judge wrote that E.C. claimed R .C. had allegedly attached " dozens of pages " of d ocuments from the abuse and neglect case and the Division ' s " investigative reports and transcripts " to a filing submitted to the Law Division in R.C. ' s legal malpractice action against Loigman. The judge recounted the history of this case and noted that the court had entered an order dated August 1, 2012 , dismissing the action

. 2 The judge stated that , at the time E.C. made this motion, he was twenty

- five years old and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Family Part. The judge also stated that the re lief

2 The judge commented that on March 8, 2015, the Supreme Court reprimanded Loigman as result of his filing o f the second abuse and neglect action and the tort claims notice. We note that on March 9, 2016, t he Supreme Court reprimanded Loigman for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct by bringing a frivolous claim and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In re Loigman , 224 N.J. 271 (2016). It is not clear from the record before us whether the reprimand arose from the second abuse and neglect proceeding or the tort claims notice.7 A

- 2639

- 18T2

sought were equitable in nature and not appropriate for disposition by the Family
Part. This appeal followed. 3 On appeal, E.C. argues that the Family Part judge erred by failing to ensure the confidentiality of the records pertaining to the abuse a nd neglect proceedings . He asserts R.C. has filed certain civil actions and claims and that in those proceedings , she has regularly attached copies of the Divis i on ' s a nd Family Part records , which purportedly identify E.C. as a victim of child abuse.
A ccording to E.C., these documents include a page of the Division ' s screening summary, a section of a document related to the Division ' s investigation, a page or report from the prosecutor ' s office, a narrative of an investigation , and certain Family Part o rders. He asserts that R.C. is using

" confidential records to advance a personal malicious agenda

. . . . " He argues the Family Part judge erred by failing to promptl y enjoin R.C. ' s use of these records. The Division ' s records " regarding the abuse and neglect of a child are expressly made confidential. " New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v.
N.S. , 412 N.J. Super. 593, 635 (App. Div. 2010) (citing N.J.S.A. 9:6

- 8.10a(a);

3 We note that the Division has advised the co urt it takes no position on the appeal.8 A

- 2639

- 18T2

Division of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.B. , 120 N.J. 112, 126

- 27 (1990)).
N.J. S.A. 9:6

- 8.10a (a) states that :

All records of child abuse reports made pursuant to section 3 of P.L.1971, c.437, all information obtained by the Department of Children and Families in investigating such reports . . . and all reports of findings forwarded t o the child abuse registry pursuant to section 4 of P.L.1971, c. 437 shall be kept confidential and may be disclosed only under the circumstances expressly authorized under subsections b., c., d., e., f., and g. herein. The department shall disclose inform ation only as authorized under subsections b., c., d., e., f., and g. of this section that is relevant to the purpose for which the information is required, provided, however, that nothing may be disclosed which would likely endanger the life, safety, or p hysical or emotional well

- being of a child or the life or safety of any other person or which may compromise the integrity of a department investi gation or a civil or criminal investigation or judicial proceeding.
The statute provides, however, certain ex ceptions that allow disclosure of records deemed confidential to law enforcement and child protection agencies, physicians, courts, legal counsel, and parents when the parent " is directly involved. " N.J.S.A. 9:6

- 8.10a(b) to (g). Further more , " [a]ny indiv idual, . . . or other entity which receives

. . . the records and reports referred to in subsection a., shall keep the records and reports, or par ts thereof, confidential and shall not disclose the records and reports . . . except as authorized by law. " N .J.S.A. 9:6

- 8.10a(b).9 A

- 2639

- 18T2

Our court rules also provide for confidentiality of certain court records. Rule 1:38

- 3(a) states that " [r]ecords required to be kept confidential by statute, rule, or prior case law " are to be excluded from public access " unless ot herwise ordered by a court upon a finding of good cause. The records remain confidential even when attached to a non

- confidential document. " R. 1:38

- 3(a). Moreover, the public is not permitted access to court records relating to child abuse victims. Se e R. 1:38

- 3(c)(9), (c)(12), (d)(10), (d)(11), (d)(17). Notwithstanding E.C. ' s arguments to the contrary, w e are convinced the Family Part judge d id not err by denying E.C. ' s motion to enjoin R.C. from the alleged unauthorized use of records related to the abuse and neglect proceedings. As we have explained, E.C. claims R.C. improperly attached the records to documents she filed in the legal malpractice case against Loigman

. The claims
asserted in that action are apparently based in part on Loigman ' s repr esentation of E.C

. in the abuse and neglect proceedings. E.C. has not provided this court with cop ies of the documents that R.C.

a llegedly filed in the Law Division , no r has he provided this court with copies of any orders that the Law Division judge en tered in the legal malpractice action pertaining to the use and dissemination of the records at issue

. He has not10 A

- 2639

- 18T2

establish ed that R.C. violated any court order by attaching the records to documents filed in the legal malpractice case. Moreover, in th e legal malpractice action , the Law Division judge stated he had taken appropriate steps to preserve the confidentiality of the Divis ion ' s records and the records of the Family Part proceedings

. The judge said he had managed the records of the Family Part in consultation with the Division and the presiding judge of the Family Part. Moreover, the Family Part dismissed this action in August 2012

. When
E.C. made his motion to enjoin R.C. from disseminat ing the records , he was twenty

- five years old and no l onger subject to the jurisdiction of the Family Part. Although the Family Part would have jurisdiction to reopen a closed case and enjoin the unauthorized disclosure of the court ' s and the Division ' s confident ial records, the judge did not err by refusing to do so. Here, t he alleged improper disclosure s were made in the pending legal malpractice action against Loigman

. The limited record before us shows the Law Division judge in that action ha s addressed th e use of the records at issue and has taken st eps to ensure their confidentiality. Any claim that R.C. is not abiding by the orders entered in the legal malpractice action , or is otherwise improperly disclosing and disseminating records deemed confidentia l under11 A

- 2639

- 18T2

N.J.S.A. 9:6

- 8.10a(a) and the court ru les , should be raised in the Law Division action , not in this closed Family Part case. We have considered the other contentions raised on appeal and conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.