## Facts

- DYFS filed a Title 9 abuse-and-neglect complaint involving Y.C. and her minor daughter, A.C.
- A.C., a young child, reported at school that she had been taken to a ceremony where animals were killed, including chickens and a goat (and she also described a snake).
- According to A.C., she was handed over to people she did not know, watched animals being strangled and having their throats cut, and was forced to eat a chicken heart.
- A.C. also reported that she was pricked with needles in multiple places on her body; she described the needle punctures as painful and the experience as frightening.
- A doctor and a social worker examined A.C. and observed puncture wounds consistent with her report.
- Y.C. initially denied any ritual and told DYFS that the marks were from ordinary childhood activity, such as skating, and from fights with other children; she also stated she was Catholic and did not believe in rituals.
- DYFS did not credit Y.C.’s explanations and removed A.C. from Y.C.’s custody.
- Y.C. later acknowledged that she took A.C. to a ceremony after researching information on the internet, saying the purpose was to protect A.C. while Y.C. was in military service.
- Caseworkers believed the event resembled a Santeria-type rite, but Y.C. did not present competent proof about any religious basis for the ceremony, and trial counsel did not frame the matter as a religious-exercise dispute in the Family Part.
- After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Part entered an order finding abuse or neglect (December 9, 2009), and later entered a final order ending the Title 9 litigation (August 4, 2010).
- Y.C. appealed, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence for abuse/neglect and the rejection of her Free Exercise argument.

## Issues

1. Was there sufficient, legally competent evidence to support the Family Part’s finding that Y.C. abused or neglected A.C. by arranging and permitting the child’s involvement in the ceremony and related acts?
2. Did the abuse/neglect adjudication violate the Free Exercise Clause where Y.C. claimed the conduct was connected to religion, despite the absence of proof that the ceremony or Y.C.’s actions were based on religious belief?

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Part’s abuse-and-neglect finding and the final order concluding the Title 9 matter.
- The court held that the record supported the trial judge’s determination that Y.C. subjected A.C. to an unsafe and harmful experience by arranging for the child to be given to strangers, pricked with needles, and exposed to animal killings.
- The court rejected Y.C.’s Free Exercise argument because she did not present legally competent evidence that the ceremony was religiously based or that she acted from religious belief; the record also reflected that trial counsel did not treat religion as an issue at the fact-finding hearing.

## Legal Principles

- A Title 9 finding of abuse or neglect may be based on conduct that places a child at substantial risk of harm or causes harm, including exposing a child to frightening violence and physical injury.
- Physical corroboration (such as observed puncture wounds) and a trial judge’s credibility findings may support an abuse/neglect adjudication; appellate review is deferential to Family Part fact findings supported by the record.
- A Free Exercise challenge requires a factual showing that the parent’s conduct was religiously motivated or that the challenged act burdened religious exercise; without competent evidence of a religious basis, the constitutional claim fails.
- Even if third parties performed the acts, a parent may be held responsible under Title 9 when the parent arranged for or permitted the child’s participation in dangerous conduct.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division affirmed the Title 9 adjudication because the evidence supported the finding that Y.C. arranged for A.C. to undergo a ceremony involving needle pricks and exposure to the killing of animals, creating harm and risk of harm, and Y.C.’s Free Exercise argument failed because she produced no competent evidence that the event was religiously based or that her conduct stemmed from religious belief.


New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. Y.C., 2011 WL 2304147 (2011)