New Jersey Div. of Child Protection & Permanency v. L.W., 435 N.J. Super. 189 (App. Div. 2014). Impoverishment does not equal child neglect. That is the conclusion of this opinion by Judge Koblitz. The Appellate Division reversed a finding by plaintiff Division of Child Protection and Permanency (“the Division”) that defendant L.W. was guilty of child neglect. That decision resulted from L.W.’s action in bringing her two small children to the Division for placement in foster care when L.W. “had explored all her options and could not find housing.” A caseworker testified that the children “seemed healthy, safe and happy …. [and] were clean, well-fed and well-clothed” when L.W. brought them to the Division.
A judge found that L.W. had done “the responsible thing” in bringing her children to the Division. Despite that, the Division pursued neglect charges against L.W. After testimony detailed L.W.’s moves to Georgia, then back to New Jersey, and her numerous and varied efforts to find housing, including with her fiance, all to no avail, a different judge found L.W. guilty of neglect due to her “unbelievably poor planning.” L.W. appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed.
Judge Koblitz first addressed whether the appeal was from a final order. The order was not in fact final because “the Title Nine action remained open, further services were ordered and the children were not returned to their mother.” Nonetheless, the panel granted leave to appeal nunc pro tunc and considered the issues. Unlike other cases where the Appellate Division has refused to address appeals that are not from final judgments, the child-centered issues here called for immediate review even absent a fully final order.
The standard of review of findings of fact by the Family Part is a deferential one, as Judge Koblitz recognized. Thus, the panel accepted the finding that L.W. had engaged in “poor planning.” But that did not mean there was neglect. L.W.’s “poor planning is at least a side-effect of poverty. She sought housing through government agencies. She sought employment to no avail. Like many people, she formed a bond with her fiance and tied her family welfare to his ability to provide housing. Ultimately, he was unable to provide housing for the children, so [L.W.] did what was in their best interest by coming to the Division for help instead of subjecting her children to further homelessness.”
Judge Koblitz emphasized that it is “important that impoverished, homeless parents feel free to call on the Division in times of need, without fear of being found neglectful for ‘poor planning.'” The panel agreed with the first judge that L.W. had done the responsible thing. The finding of neglect was reversed.