## Facts

- The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) filed a Title 9 abuse/neglect action concerning J.M.G., a premature infant born healthy.
- The mother, V.M., had a significant psychiatric history (including PTSD and suspected schizoaffective or bipolar disorder) and stopped taking psychotropic medication during pregnancy.
- At about 35 weeks’ gestation, V.M. was hospitalized in early labor; she refused to consent to a cesarean section despite warnings about serious fetal risks if distress developed.
- During labor, V.M. behaved erratically toward hospital staff; she called police claiming abuse and denial of treatment, while staff reported thrashing and threats.
- A psychiatric evaluator concluded V.M. was not psychotic and understood the risks associated with declining a cesarean section.
- V.M. ultimately received an epidural and delivered vaginally without incident; the baby was born premature but healthy.
- After delivery, V.M. refused prescribed psychiatric medication, denied having refused a cesarean section, and gave distorted or false accounts of events, raising concerns about her stability and insight.
- The father/partner, B.G., was present and distrustful of providers but was not shown to have threatened or harmed the child or staff.
- The Family Part found both parents abused or neglected the child, placed the child in DYFS custody, and later approved a permanency plan toward termination of parental rights.
- Both parents appealed the abuse/neglect findings.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient credible evidence supported a finding that V.M.’s mental condition and conduct placed the newborn at imminent danger or substantial risk of harm amounting to abuse or neglect under Title 9.
2. Whether sufficient credible evidence supported a finding that B.G. abused or neglected the child under Title 9.
3. Whether refusal to consent to a cesarean section can, as a matter of law, constitute or be used as an element of abuse or neglect under Title 9.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the abuse/neglect adjudication as to V.M.
- The Appellate Division reversed the abuse/neglect adjudication as to B.G., noting DYFS’s concession at oral argument that the record did not support the finding against him.
- The court declined to decide whether refusal to consent to a cesarean section can constitute an element of abuse or neglect, concluding the case could be resolved without reaching that legal question.
- The court applied a deferential standard to Family Part fact-finding, sustaining it only where supported by sufficient credible evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under New Jersey Title 9, abuse or neglect may be found where parental conduct or condition places a child in imminent danger or a substantial risk of harm; actual injury is not required.
- Appellate review in child-welfare cases generally defers to Family Part factual findings when supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.
- Findings of abuse or neglect must be supported by record evidence as to each parent individually; a parent’s frustration or distrust of medical providers, without more, is insufficient.
- A court may affirm an abuse/neglect adjudication on evidence of mental-health instability and related conduct creating risk to a newborn, without announcing a categorical rule about obstetric-treatment refusal.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division upheld the abuse/neglect finding against the mother based on her documented psychiatric history and conduct surrounding and following childbirth that supported a finding of imminent danger to the newborn, reversed the finding against the father for lack of evidentiary support, and left unresolved whether refusal of a cesarean section can itself constitute child abuse or neglect under Title 9.


N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. V.M., 974 A.2d 448 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009)