NJ & CT News

NEW JERSEY

No Mandatory Reporting Without 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.”

New Legislation Will Open Adoption Records to Adult Adoptees

In May, the New Jersey legislature approved a measure allowing adoptees to access their adoption records. The law makes New Jersey just one of nine states ' the others being Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island and Tennessee ' that allow such disclosures. The New Jersey Catholic Conference and New Jersey Right to Life lobbied against the measure, arguing that birth parents who gave their children up for adoption in the past were assured that their identities and histories would be kept confidential, and that these promises should be respected. It was for this reason that a previous version of the bill was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie.

To address this concern, the measure that was passed in May allows birth parents to notify state authorities that they want their names redacted from all documents, and that they do not wish to have direct contact with their children. These notifications must be made before Dec. 31, 2016, if they are to be honored prior to the opening of the adoption records. Medical information may still be provided to adoptees, however, even over a birth parent's objections. State Senators Diane Allen, R-Burlington and Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, sponsored the bill. Following the Senate's approval but before final passage of the bill, Vitale said, “That special bond, knowing who you are, having access to medical history and to records is extremely important. We believe that, finally, adoptees have the justice they deserve.”

CONNECTICUT

Family of Murder Victim Awarded $10 Million in Domestic Violence Wrongful Death Suit

The family of a woman killed by her ex-boyfriend have been awarded $10 million in their suit against the Town of Plainville, CT, and two of its police officers, after they alleged that, not only had the police failed to enforce a restraining order against the murderer, but one of them had tipped off the man that his ex-girlfriend was reporting his harassing behavior to the police department. James Carter II of Bloomfield, CT, is currently serving a 60-year sentence for killing Tiana Notice by stabbing her 20 times. The lead-up to the murder was recorded by a surveillance camera, which the 25-year-old victim's father set up outside her apartment when it became apparent that Carter was a continuing threat. In the recorded video the victim can be seen running from Carter and, although the murder took place off-camera, the victim's screams can be heard as she is being attacked.

“We believe the lawsuit here was vindicated by the careful work of the jury in assessing the facts and the law,” said one of the plaintiff's lawyers, Thomas Murphy, of Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy in Hartford. “We view this as justice for Tiana, who didn't get it while she was alive.”

One of the lawyers defending the police officers, Scott Karsten, of Karsten & Tallberg in West Hartford, CT, says they plan to file post-trial motions, and to appeal, if necessary. “Our view is that it's a case that never should've gone to a jury to begin with,” said Karsten. “There was no apparent risk of physical injury to the victim at any time prior to the murder. We think this is a good example of why the doctrine of governmental immunity exists.”

'

NEW JERSEY

No Mandatory Reporting Without 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.”

New Legislation Will Open Adoption Records to Adult Adoptees

In May, the New Jersey legislature approved a measure allowing adoptees to access their adoption records. The law makes New Jersey just one of nine states ' the others being Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island and Tennessee ' that allow such disclosures. The New Jersey Catholic Conference and New Jersey Right to Life lobbied against the measure, arguing that birth parents who gave their children up for adoption in the past were assured that their identities and histories would be kept confidential, and that these promises should be respected. It was for this reason that a previous version of the bill was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie.

To address this concern, the measure that was passed in May allows birth parents to notify state authorities that they want their names redacted from all documents, and that they do not wish to have direct contact with their children. These notifications must be made before Dec. 31, 2016, if they are to be honored prior to the opening of the adoption records. Medical information may still be provided to adoptees, however, even over a birth parent's objections. State Senators Diane Allen, R-Burlington and Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, sponsored the bill. Following the Senate's approval but before final passage of the bill, Vitale said, “That special bond, knowing who you are, having access to medical history and to records is extremely important. We believe that, finally, adoptees have the justice they deserve.”

CONNECTICUT

Family of Murder Victim Awarded $10 Million in Domestic Violence Wrongful Death Suit

The family of a woman killed by her ex-boyfriend have been awarded $10 million in their suit against the Town of Plainville, CT, and two of its police officers, after they alleged that, not only had the police failed to enforce a restraining order against the murderer, but one of them had tipped off the man that his ex-girlfriend was reporting his harassing behavior to the police department. James Carter II of Bloomfield, CT, is currently serving a 60-year sentence for killing Tiana Notice by stabbing her 20 times. The lead-up to the murder was recorded by a surveillance camera, which the 25-year-old victim's father set up outside her apartment when it became apparent that Carter was a continuing threat. In the recorded video the victim can be seen running from Carter and, although the murder took place off-camera, the victim's screams can be heard as she is being attacked.

“We believe the lawsuit here was vindicated by the careful work of the jury in assessing the facts and the law,” said one of the plaintiff's lawyers, Thomas Murphy, of Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy in Hartford. “We view this as justice for Tiana, who didn't get it while she was alive.”

One of the lawyers defending the police officers, Scott Karsten, of Karsten & Tallberg in West Hartford, CT, says they plan to file post-trial motions, and to appeal, if necessary. “Our view is that it's a case that never should've gone to a jury to begin with,” said Karsten. “There was no apparent risk of physical injury to the victim at any time prior to the murder. We think this is a good example of why the doctrine of governmental immunity exists.”

'