On July 31, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Monmouth County case of N.J. Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. A.P. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 concerned whether D.C.P. and P could use the defendant’s expunged records in their case involving allegations of child abuse and neglect.
Justice Patterson wrote for a unanimous Court in relevant part: The Division presented to the trial court detailed evidence of the protocols that require the Division and law enforcement to closely cooperate in child abuse investigations, and it explained the importance of a joint child protection and criminal-justice investigation of suspected child abuse. It argued that the compelling public policy in favor of the protection of children warranted access to the prosecutor’s file in preparation for the Title 9 fact-finding proceeding.
However, the Division did not contend that expunged criminal records may be disclosed and used in any Title 9 proceeding arising from suspected child abuse. To the contrary, to justify access to Arlo’s expunged records, the Division presented the case-specific facts that N.J.S.A. 2C:52-19 mandates.
As the Appellate Division observed, the Division established that the criminal and civil proceedings against Arlo concerned the same incident, and that the expunged records were created immediately after Daniel’s injuries. The Division also demonstrated that the law enforcement and child protection investigations were concurrent and intertwined. The Division thus established a close nexus between its investigation of suspected child abuse and the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office’s arrest and prosecution of Arlo.
In addition, the Division demonstrated the importance of the expunged documents to this Title 9 proceeding, citing the underlying facts. The only witnesses to Daniel’s injuries were Arlo and Tiffany, both of whom stated that the child had a minor accident, tripping on an item left on the floor of his home. Daniel, then only two years old, sustained a serious head injury. By virtue of his age and medical condition, Daniel was incapable of recounting the incident to investigators in its immediate aftermath, and there is no indication that he has any recollection of that incident today. Accordingly, expunged records in the prosecutor’s file may provide crucial evidence that cannot be obtained from other sources. Considered together, those factors comprise a showing of “good cause and compelling need based on specific facts.” N.J.S.A. 2C:52-19.
This recounting of the case facts indicates that the defendant ended up making an inculpatory statement to the police or a third-party that communicated it to the police. Alternatively, his guilt could have been established by medical testimony in the absence of an inculpatory statement.
