Child Protection And Permanency (DCPP)

The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) is New Jersey’s child protection and welfare agency and has the obligation to provide services for every child and family suffering from abuse and neglect. The Office of Adolescent Services (OAS) supports the transition of adolescents into adulthood and is obligated to develop a robust service system that seeks to provide services and supports youth. Both DCPP and OAS fall within the State of New Jersey’s Department of Children and Families (DCF). The Division of Child Protection and Permanency defines the aging out population as the age of majority, which New Jersey law has defined as the age (18) at which a child becomes an adult. This stage is known as adolescence. DCF policy defines

Department of Children & Families, Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 at 301; New Jersey Dept. of Children and Families v. R.R., 436 N.J. Super. 53 at 60; New Jersey Dep't of Youth & Family Services v. J.L., 410 N.J. Super. 159 at 166. However, the court does not have to take heed to the agency’s interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue. No difference is required to the agency when the agency's statutory interpretation is contrary to the statutory language or undermines the legislature's intent. 207 N.J. 294 at 301; Dep't of Children & Families v. D.B., 443 N.J. Super. 431 at

T.B., 207 N.J. 294 at 301; J.L., 410 N.J. Super. 159 at 166. In T.B., a mother was under the assumption that her parents were home; mistakenly left her child at home alone, the Division of Youth and Family Services found that the mother was negligent. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 at 297. However, the court held that the defendant did not fail to "exercise a minimum degree of care" under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b), therefore her conduct was not grossly negligent or reckless. Id. at 302. The court examines a statute based on the legislature’s intent. Id. When the plain-language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, then the court's interpretation process of the statute is over. Id. at 303. However when there is ambiguity in the statutory language, the court will examine extrinsic evidence. Id. The court examines a variety of sources of extrinsic evidence, such as the legislative history and legislative intent. Id. at 310. The court started by analyzing the plain language of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b) which does not imply that when a parent fails to perform a cautionary act does not mean it is abuse or neglect. Id. at 307. “When the failure to perform a cautionary act is merely negligent, it does not necessarily cause section (c)(4)(b) of the abuse or neglect statute”. Id. See also. J.L., 410 N.J. Super. 159 at 169. (reasoning