Med Mal News

The mother had abandoned the child shortly after her birth, and the father had custody at the time of this incident. A few years later he lost custody, due to allegations of abuse. In 2006, the child was adopted by the plaintiff here, known as L.A. in court papers. L.A. sued New Jersey's Department of Youth and Family Services, the hospital and Dr. Yu, among others.

The allegations against Dr. Yu and the hospital claimed they had negligently failed to report a suspected case of child abuse in accordance with New Jersey Statutes Annotated (N.J.S.A.) 9:6-8.10. The trial court summarily dismissed the claims against the hospital and doctor, concluding that the fact that a two-year-old child had ingested a foreign substance was not enough to create a reasonable belief that child abuse was the cause. The Appellate Division reversed on appeal, after determining that a reasonable jury could have found from the circumstances that the child's ingestion of cologne was due to the parent's “reckless” or “grossly or wantonly negligent” conduct or inaction.

In reversing, the New Jersey Supreme Court said there must be a reasonably objective belief, under the circumstances of the child's injury as known at the time, that abuse may have occurred; if circumstances do not indicate abuse, the statutory duty to report does not kick in. The unanimous court concluded that these circumstances ' a toddler's ingesting a product that might be found in any home, where there have been no previous suspicions of child abuse ' did not require reporting. Writing for the court, Judge Jaynee LaVecchia said, “While child-proofing of homes is not a new or revolutionary precaution in modern life, the idea that a toddler might find a way to get her hands on a common cosmetic or toiletry item is not equivalent to grossly negligent or reckless behavior on the part of a parent. Were that to be so, every accidental ingestion case presenting at a hospital emergency room would risk becoming a mandatory child abuse reporting incident. We do not believe that the reporting obligation was meant to operate in such fashion. Indeed, it would foster over-reporting.”

'

Reporting Not Mandatory: No Reasonable Suspicion of Child Abuse

New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that a doctor and hospital that did not inform social services of possible parental abuse or neglect, even though the only indication of such was that a child had ingested some cologne, did not run afoul of the State's mandatory child-abuse reporting statute.

In January 2001 a two-year-old child was brought to the emergency room at Jersey Shore University Medical Center in Neptune, NJ. She was lethargic, walking erratically, vomiting and her breath smelled of something unusual. Her blood alcohol level was .035 %. The child was diagnosed by emergency room doctor Daniel Yu as having consumed some cologne. The little girl was treated and released from the hospital a few hours later. Child welfare authorities were not contacted concerning any suspicion of child abuse or neglect.

The mother had abandoned the child shortly after her birth, and the father had custody at the time of this incident. A few years later he lost custody, due to allegations of abuse. In 2006, the child was adopted by the plaintiff here, known as L.A. in court papers. L.A. sued New Jersey's Department of Youth and Family Services, the hospital and Dr. Yu, among others.

The allegations against Dr. Yu and the hospital claimed they had negligently failed to report a suspected case of child abuse in accordance with New Jersey Statutes Annotated (N.J.S.A.) 9:6-8.10. The trial court summarily dismissed the claims against the hospital and doctor, concluding that the fact that a two-year-old child had ingested a foreign substance was not enough to create a reasonable belief that child abuse was the cause. The Appellate Division reversed on appeal, after determining that a reasonable jury could have found from the circumstances that the child's ingestion of cologne was due to the parent's “reckless” or “grossly or wantonly negligent” conduct or inaction.

In reversing, the New Jersey Supreme Court said there must be a reasonably objective belief, under the circumstances of the child's injury as known at the time, that abuse may have occurred; if circumstances do not indicate abuse, the statutory duty to report does not kick in. The unanimous court concluded that these circumstances ' a toddler's ingesting a product that might be found in any home, where there have been no previous suspicions of child abuse ' did not require reporting. Writing for the court, Judge Jaynee LaVecchia said, “While child-proofing of homes is not a new or revolutionary precaution in modern life, the idea that a toddler might find a way to get her hands on a common cosmetic or toiletry item is not equivalent to grossly negligent or reckless behavior on the part of a parent. Were that to be so, every accidental ingestion case presenting at a hospital emergency room would risk becoming a mandatory child abuse reporting incident. We do not believe that the reporting obligation was meant to operate in such fashion. Indeed, it would foster over-reporting.”

'