PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The decision stems from a 2018 case involving an apparently abused infant whose parents were stripped of custody after trial and appellate judges asked they prove they did not abuse their son. None of the parties are identified by full names in the decision. A physician found the infant was bruised, had damage to connective tissue in his neck, and had blood spillage in his brain — injuries that suggest shaken baby syndrome and which the doctor said were unexplained by the bout of bacterial meningitis that brought him to the hospital. A separate physician, called by the defense, testified those injuries and others were indicative of past abuse, though a doctor called by the defendants said the life-threatening infection and the seizures it caused could explain most of the injuries. The trial court found the child’s injuries indicated abuse, which the Division of Child Protection and Permanency inferred could only have been enacted by the infant’s parents. The burden of evidence then shifted to the parents, who were tasked with proving they did not allow their child to be injured or that they did not inflict the injuries themselves. Neither testified, and both were found responsible for the alleged abuse and neglect, though the court never identified specifically who caused the injuries. An appellate panel upheld the decision, but the high court found previous judges presiding over the case erred in extending the burden-shifting principle to the parents."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Missed this important New Jersey Supreme Court decision when it was released several months ago. My thanks to Dr. Bob Moles, of the 'Networked Knowledge' site - an incredible compendium of legal decisions from around the globe and much more - for bringing this decision to our attention at the link below:
http://www.netk.net.au/whatsnew.asp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "New Jersey Supreme Court rules parents cannot be forced to prove innocence in child abuse cases," by Reporter Nikita Biryukov, published by the New Jersey Monitor, on September 27, 2021. (Nikita Biryukov most recently covered state government and politics for the New Jersey Globe.)
PHOTO CAPTION: "The decision stems from a 2018 case involving an apparently abused infant whose parents were stripped of custody after trial."
GIST: "The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday family courts cannot require parents affirmatively prove they did not abuse their children, sending a case involving alleged child abuse back to family court.
The decision stems from a 2018 case involving an apparently abused infant whose parents were stripped of custody after trial and appellate judges asked they prove they did not abuse their son. None of the parties are identified by full names in the decision.
A physician found the infant was bruised, had damage to connective tissue in his neck, and had blood spillage in his brain — injuries that suggest shaken baby syndrome and which the doctor said were unexplained by the bout of bacterial meningitis that brought him to the hospital.
A separate physician, called by the defense, testified those injuries and others were indicative of past abuse, though a doctor called by the defendants said the life-threatening infection and the seizures it caused could explain most of the injuries.
The trial court found the child’s injuries indicated abuse, which the Division of Child Protection and Permanency inferred could only have been enacted by the infant’s parents.
The burden of evidence then shifted to the parents, who were tasked with proving they did not allow their child to be injured or that they did not inflict the injuries themselves.
Neither testified, and both were found responsible for the alleged abuse and neglect, though the court never identified specifically who caused the injuries.
An appellate panel upheld the decision, but the high court found previous judges presiding over the case erred in extending the burden-shifting principle to the parents.
Though common law allows for such a shift in certain civil cases, the Supreme Court found Monday the judiciary lacks the authority to extend that principle to Title 9, the statute governing the state’s family courts.
That law places the burden of proof on the Division of Child Protection and Permanency, the decision says, and the courts cannot shift that burden elsewhere because the law was crafted by the Legislature and the judiciary has no authority to rewrite the law."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
