Parents Didn't Commit Child Neglect For Slapping Teen and Taking Her Paycheck, Says NJ Supreme Court

According to the unanimous decision published by the New Jersey Supreme Court on January 26, 2011, the parents of a teenage girl did not commit child abuse by slapping their daughter and taking a portion of her part-time wages to pay family bills.  New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. P.W.R. (A-79-09, January 26, 2011). 

The Court found the state Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS") lacked sufficient evidence to remove the teenager (Alice) from her father and stepmother’s home in 2008, and  vacated the abuse and neglect judgment against her stepmother (Pam).

DYFS removed the girl from the home after her grandfather reported the parents for taking her earnings from her part-time job and "slapping her around." A DYFS worker also found the home was without heat and authorized an emergency removal.

The father told a DYFS representative that his wife (Pam) had slapped his daughter (Alice) once two years earlier, and that part of Alice's earnings went to the cable bill. The couple said their central heating was broken, and they were using space heaters. The family members were not named the decision.

The Supreme Court found that an occasional slap, "although hardly admirable ... does not fit a common sense prohibition against ‘excessive’ corporal punishment." And classifying as abuse and neglect the requirement of a working-aged child to contribute to the family finances is "simply wide of the mark," LaVecchia wrote. The Court further remarked:

The dominant allegation of abuse was that Pam slapped Alice in the face, which conduct, although abhorrent to a sixteen-year-old young woman, and hardly admirable, does not fit within the statutory definition of abuse.

* * *

In sum, although no parenting awards are to be won on this record, neither was actionable abuse or neglect proven. As stated at the outset, DYFS has many serious cases, and even more numerous referrals that necessitate investigations requiring the agency to wade into difficult family problems in order to protect children. Its task is hard and it must be vigilant, but it must be vigilant within the limitations of the law that empowers the agency’s actions. The record here simply did not demonstrate proof of actionable abuse or neglect of Alice by Pam. It was an error for the courts below to have sustained the findings of abuse and neglect entered against Pam.

The girl is no longer a minor, so the Court’s decision did not affect her custody.  A full copy of the NJ Supreme Court's published opinion can be found here.