In this appeal, the court addressed in a Title 9 proceeding, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.73, whether a child subjected to alleged abuse or neglect has the right to a fact-finding hearing after the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) entered a settlement with her adoptive parents. The court also addressed the child's rights to sibling visitation under the Child Placement Bill of Rights Act (CPBRA), N.J.S.A. 9:6B-1 to -6, and the Siblings' Bill of Rights (SBR), L. 2023, c. 1, §§1-3 (codified at N.J.S.A. 9:6B-2.1 to -2.2 and amending N.J.S.A. 9:6B-4).
Appellant Mil.Z. (Mary) appealed from the Family Part judge's order denying her request for a Title 9 abuse or neglect hearing after she objected to the judge's finding that the Division's settlement with defendants D.P.-Z. (Dawn) and S.E.Z (Sara) sufficiently established abuse or neglect against her under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4). Mary additionally challenged the judge's denial of her request for a plenary hearing on sibling visitation with her siblings, Ma.Z. (Maya) and Mi.Z. (Mindy), and best interests evaluations.
The court determined that a Family Part judge is permitted to accept a Title 9 abuse or neglect settlement if the judge is satisfied that the settlement is in the child's best interests after considering the abuse or neglect claims, the settlement stipulations, the defendant's factual admissions, the child's Law Guardian's objection, and any other relevant factors. In the present case, the court reversed because the judge made insufficient factual findings as to Dawn's and Sara's conduct that constituted abuse or neglect. The court also reversed the judge's denial of Mary's request for a plenary hearing on sibling visitation and best interests evaluations. The court held Mary has the presumptive right to sibling visitation under the CPBRA and the SBR and had made a sufficient prima facie showing of resulting harm from the judge's denial of sibling visitation. Further, the court held that the record supported the need for independent sibling bonding and best interests evaluations by trained medical experts, and the judge erred in not separately addressing Maya's needs, because her autism spectrum disorder did not prevent a trained medical professional from effectively conducting an evaluation.