RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A- 2218-18T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION

OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

B.C.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

Submitted April 20, 2020 – Decided July 14, 2020

Before Judges Rothstadt and Moynihan.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Children 

and Families, Division of Child Protection and 

Permanency, Case Id No. 17291358.

Williams Law Group, LLC, attorneys for appellant 

(Allison C. Williams, of counsel and on the brief; 

Victoria Danielle Miranda, on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Mary C. Zec, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

 A-2218-18T4

PER CURIAM

Defendant, B.C. the father of a now eleven-year-old son, appeals from the

plaintiff's, the Department of Children and Families, Division of Child 

Protection and Permanency (Division), January 15, 2019 final agency 

determination that allegations it had received about defendant having abused or 

neglected his son were "not established." The finding was based upon the 

Division's investigation that arose after the son arrived at his school with an 

injury to his head that the child explained was caused by defendant pushing him, 

which led the child to hit his head against a table.

The Division's January 15, 2019 letter to defendant informing him of the 

"[n]ot [e]stablished" finding did not state what evidence the Division relied upon 

in making its decision. The letter advised that "[a] record of the incident [would]

be maintained in [the Division's] files. Current law provide[d] that this

information may not be disclosed by the Division except as permitted by

N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10[(a)]. A finding of [n]ot [e]stablished [was] not subject to an

administrative appeal." It also stated that no "further services" would be

provided to the family. 

On appeal, defendant argues that the finding of "not established" was 

arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and therefore, the Division should 
3

 A-2218-18T4

vacate the finding and change it to "unfounded," or that the matter be remanded 

for an administrative hearing. Defendant contends the Division's finding was 

not supported by any evidence "that the child was harmed or placed at risk of 

harm by" defendant, other than the child's initial interview where he alleged 

defendant pushed him. Defendant also relies upon the fact that his son did not 

need any medical attention. He contends that a finding of "not established"

should only be used when parents are determined to be negligent, which he 

argues is not the case here. 

In the alternative, defendant argues that he was entitled to a hearing to 

challenge the investigatory finding of "not established" to protect his due 

process rights, as the finding can "be used as an aggravating factor to 

demonstrate a pattern of abuse or neglect by the alleged perpetrator" and the 

finding will be in the Division's system forever. 

After this appeal was submitted for our consideration, on May 27, 2020, 

the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its opinion in S.C. v. N.J. Dep't of 

Children & Families, ___ N.J. ___ (2020), in which it addressed similar 

contentions under similar circumstances. Addressing, among other issues, the 

sufficiency of the Division's notice of its determination and the parent's right to 

an adjudicatory hearing, the Court held that such hearings were not required, id.
4

 A-2218-18T4

at ___ (slip op. at 41-42), but the parent was entitled to "meaningful" notice of 

the determination that "should include a summary of the support for the finding, 

and [that] the [Division's] reasoning should be transparently disclosed." Id. at 

___ (slip op. at 43). Moreover, the parent must be given an informal 

"opportunity to rebut the [Division's] conclusion or supplement the record [and]

that the informal opportunity to be heard before the agency . . . not [be] 

illusory." Ibid. Finally, the Court cautioned that when reaching a determination 

that an allegation of abuse or neglect is "not established," while it may be based 

upon the current standard that there must be "some evidence" to support the 

determination, the evidence it relies upon must be "credible evidence." Id. at 

___ (slip op. at 44). 

Applying those controlling principles here, we now do as the Court did in 

S.C.: "[W]e remand [this matter] for [defendant] to have the opportunity to 

rebut or supplement the [Division's] record, after [it] provides greater clarity for 

its conclusion. The remand will allow development of a proper record that can 

be reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion." Id. at ___ (slip op. at 46). 

Remanded for reconsideration applying the principles announced in S.C.

and for the issuing of a new determination consistent with our opinion. We do 

not retain jurisdiction.