Appellate Practice Group Co-Chair and Partner Matheu D. Nunn Co-Authors Amicus Brief on Behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association for Appellate Division Oral Argument on September 25

Matheu D. Nunn, Partner and co-chair of the Firm’s Appellate Practice Group, is an author of the amicus brief filed on behalf of  the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) in N.J. Department of Children and Families v. R.L., whereby the NJSBA is urging the Appellate Division to abolish the “Not Established” finding in child welfare cases. Nunn, NJSBA member Brian G. Paul, and NJSBA Past President Jeralyn L. Lawrence co-authored the brief.

“The case on appeal, while specific to the ‘Not Established’ evaluation of child abuse and neglect allegations, has larger and direct consequences for custody issues in matrimonial matters,” Nunn explains. “Our brief focuses on the current system of evaluating child abuse and neglect allegations and argues that this system created a categorization (‘Not Established’) that was never legislatively approved and should be abolished.”

The current system of evaluating child abuse and neglect allegations changed in 2011 from a two-tiered system. In 2011, then-Gov. Chris Christie rejected a three-tier system when he vetoed a bill the Legislature passed. As the brief states, “After Gov. Christie’s veto, the Department implemented a four-tiered system. This decision appears to be an administrative end-run around both the legislative process and the Governor’s decision, creating a categorization that was not legislatively approved.”

The arguments within the amicus brief include that the ‘Not Established’ standard exceeds the Department of Children and Families’ delegated authority and contravenes the Title Nine Expungement Statute, that “Not Established” findings are not disclosed on Child Abuse Record Information (CARI) background checks, and that the standard for “Not Established’ calls for the presence of “some evidence” of harm to the child, short of the preponderance of the evidence standard required for a “Substantiated” finding.

Nunn points to the brief in explaining that this “Not Established” standard is “amorphous, leading to arbitrary and potentially capricious outcomes.” The brief raises the concern that “Not Established” findings remain on record and may be discoverable in related family law matters, drawing concerns that such findings could impact future custody matters.

As co-chairs of the firm’s Appellate Practice, Nunn and Bonnie C. Frost regularly handle emergent and non-emergent matters before the Appellate Division and Supreme Court. Their efforts across a wide-range of subject matters have resulted in a number of precedent-setting decisions, including the landmark child relocation case of Bisbing v. Bisbing; cases of first-impression regarding cohabitation and termination of alimony in Cardali v. Cardali and Quinn v. Quinn; a case of first-impression regarding life insurance proceeds in Woytas v. Greenwood Tree; a contested adoption case of first impression in In re Adoption of a Child by J.E.V.; and a case of first-impression involving a special needs person in J.B. v. W.B.

Overall, the Firm’s Appellate Practice Group has prevailed in 19 cases that its attorneys initiated or handled before the New Jersey Supreme Court, including the noteworthy “firefighters’ rule” decision of Ruiz v. Mero and the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dispoto.