Case Name: NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. V.M. AND B.G., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. IN THE MATTER OF J.M.G., A MINOR
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2009-07-16
Citations: 408 N.J. Super. 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. V.M. AND B.G., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. IN THE MATTER OF J.M.G., A MINOR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 408
Pages: 222–252

Head Matter:
974 A.2d 448
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. V.M. AND B.G., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. IN THE MATTER OF J.M.G., A MINOR.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued November 3, 2008
Decided July 16, 2009.
Carchman, P.J.A.D., concurred and filed opinion.
Before Judges CARCHMAN, R.B. COLEMAN and SABATINO.
Ruth Harrigan, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant V.M. (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Harrigan, of counsel and on the brief).
Miles Lessem, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant B.G. (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Lessem, of counsel and on the brief).
Lorena L. Salzmann, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney; Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Salzmann, on the brief).
Christopher A. Huling, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for the minor (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Mr Huling, on the brief).
Lawrence S. Lustberg argued the cause for Amicus Curiae Experts in Maternal and Neonatal Health, Birth and Child Welfare (Gibbons, P.C., attorneys; Mr Lustberg and Jennifer B. Condon, on the brief).
Lynn M. Paltrow, of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for Amicus Curiae Experts in Maternal and Neonatal Health, Birth and Child Welfare (Ms. Paltrow and Susan Jenkins, of the D.C. bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys, did not file a brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendants V.M. and B.G. appeal from the judgment of the Family Part which found that they abused and neglected their child, J.M.G. As a result of these findings, J.M.G. was placed in the custody and care of plaintiff Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). At a permanency hearing the judge approved DYFS's plan for termination of parental rights.
We have carefully reviewed this record in light of defendants' contention that the judge erred in finding abuse and neglect. We agree that the judge's findings as to V.M. were supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing, but as conceded by the Deputy Attorney General representing DYFS at oral argument before us, we disagree as to his findings as they relate to B.G. We further agree with the ultimate conclusion reached by our concurring colleague affirming the judgment as to V.M. and reversing as to B.G. In so doing, we adopt the facts as set forth in the concurring opinion, and we generally ascribe to the law, which he so thoroughly enunciates in that opinion. Where we part company is his discussion of whether V.M.'s refusal to consent to a cesarean section (c-section) can, as a matter of law, be considered an element of abuse and neglect. On the record before us, we do not agree that the issue need be decided.
While we acknowledge that the judge, in fact, did rely, in part, on such refusal in his findings of abuse and neglect, we are of the view that there was substantial additional evidence of abuse and neglect that supported the ultimate findings. Our view is consistent with DYFS' acknowledgement at oral argument that the judge need not have considered V.M.'s refusal on the merits of the issue of abuse or neglect. DYFS did assert, as well, that the judge could consider V.M.'s refusal and her later claim that she did not refuse, as these statements relate to her credibility.
As we have stated, the independent evidence presented, irrespective of the evidence concerning V.M.'s resistance to the c-section, amply supported the judge's ultimate finding as to V.M., and we affirm as to her. As to B.G., we reverse for the reasons set forth in the concurring opinion.
Affirmed as to defendant V.M.; reversed as to defendant B.G.