MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC

Beth G. Baldinger (Attorney ID# 032681985)

David A. Mazie, Esq. (Attorney ID#: 017941986)
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
(973) 228-9898
.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
J.P., as Parent and Legal Guardian of
D.P.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION: HUDSON COUNTY
DOCKETNO.: L-Lts-t'J-- /S~

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

vs.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY;

DEPARTMENT OF CillLDREN AND

FAMJLIES; DIVISION OF C:HlLD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TI:IE
DIVISION OF YOUJH AND FAMJLY
SERVICES); RENEE CONDO; DONNA
LEWIS-JOHNSON; JHERESA
ANAZODO; JOHN DOES 1-10; ABC
ENTITIES 1-10.,

COMPLAINT AND JURYDEMAND

FILED
TEAM#1

NOV 0 2 2015
S\JPERlOR COURT 0~ NEW JERSEY
\{;~fliNTY OFHiJDSDN

.CI\1lt DllffSJON #i 5

Defendants.

Plaintiff, J.P., as parent and legal guardian of D.P., a minor, residing in Hudson
County, New Jersey, by way of Co)ll.plai!!t against the defendants alleges and says:
PARTIES .AND JURISDICTION

1.

At all relevant times, plaintiff J.P., the mother and legal guardian of D.P.

(initials used to protect the identity of the minor disabled child born on 2/9/04) has been a
resident of Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey.
2.

At all relevant times, defendants State of New Jersey, Department of Children

and Families, Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly known as the Division
of Youth and Family Senrices, and hereinafter collectively referred to as "DCPP") maintained

its principal office in Trenton and a local office in Bayonne, New Jersey and were responsible
fm the oversight and protection of the health, safety and welfare of children.
3.

At all relevant times, defendants Renee Condo ("CoJ14o"), Donna Lewis-

Johnson ("Lewis-Johnson"), Theresa Anazodo ("Anazodo"), John Does (1-10) (fictitious

designation for persons whose identities are currently unknown), and ABC Entities (1lO)(fictitious designation for entities whose identities are currently unknown), were
employees or agents of DCPP acting in course and scope of their employment or agency, as
well as acting uoder color of state law, as a caseworker, case work supervisor, supervisor,
inanager, investigator, and/or. service provider for DCPP.

(Defendants Condo, Lewis-

Johnson, Anazodo, Jolm Does (1-10) and ABC Entities (1-10) are hereinafter collectively
referred to as the "Individual Defendants" unless otherwise individually identified).

4.

The primary events which give-rise to the claims asserted herein occurred

while J.P. and her son D.P. were residing in Jersey City, Hudson Couoty, with DCPP and the
Individual Defendants providing services from DCPP's office located at 690 Broadway,
Bayonne, Hudson Couoty, New Jersey (hereinafter "DCPP Bayonne Office").
5.

On or about September 24,2013, J.P. du1y served a Notice of Claim on behalf

of D.P. in accordance with N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 et. seq.

Six months have now lapsed and the

claim remains unsatisfied.

DCPP'S CARE, SUPERVISION, CUSTODY AND PLACEMENT OF D.P.
6.

On or about March 1D, 2010, DCPP first became involved with J.P. and her

son, D.P. through a report of suspected child abuse or neglect which it subsequently
investigated and determined to be unsubstantiated.

7.

Thereafter, tbrough the remainder of2010 and 2011, DCPP and the Individual

Defendants remained involved with J.P. and D.P. and knew that the State of New Jersey,
Department of Developmental Disabilities (hereinafter "DDD") was providing services to
assist J.P. and D.P. as he was severely autistic and developmentally disabled with special
needs.
8.

In 2011, DCPP and the Individual Defendants implemented a "Safety

Protection Plan" for J.P. and D.P. which included but was not limited to the provision of
homemaker and child care services ("Services"). As DCPP and the Individual Defendants tlid
not want to continue to provide such Services on a long term basis, they requested DDD place
D.P. in a specialized residential care facility and that J.P. agree to such placement DCPP and
the Individual Defendants threatened DDD and J.P. that if D.P. was not placed by them in a
residential care facility that they would fi1.e to obtain custody ofD.P.-and place him in foster
care. Upon information and belief, DCPP and the Individual Defendants sought to have D.P.
placed in a residential care facility so that DDD would pay the cost of D.P.'s care to save
DCPP the expense of the Services it was providing.

DDD refused to place D.P. in a

residential care facility.

9.

On or about January 4, 2012, DCPP :filed an Order to Show Cause and

Verified Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Hudson County (hereinafter "Cornt") seeking care, supervision and custody of D.P. DCPP
and the Individual Defendants knew that J.P. did not want D.P. placed in foster care with
caretakers who did not know how to care for D.P.'s special needs, and she expressed great
concem that D.P. would be abused or neglected in aDCCP foster home placement.

10.

On or about January 9, 2012, the Court issued an Order which denied DCPP

custody, but granted them care and supervision over D.P., and further directed DCPP to
continue to provide-Services.
11.

On or about March 15, 2012, DCPP filed an Amended Verified Complaint

seeking care, custody and supervision of D.P. based upon the :findings of child psychiatrist,
Larry Dumont, M.D. ("Dr. Dumonf').

Dr. Dumont diagnosed D.P. with Perv.asive

Developmental Disorder, Full Spectrum .Disorder, Full Spectrum Autistic Disorder,

Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and Moderate Mental Retardation.

Dr. Dumont

recommended that DCPP be &ranted custody in order to place D.P. in a therapeutic foster
ho= which would provide the appropriate level of individual care and types of services D.P.
required for his developmental disabilities.
12.

On or about March 20, 2012, the Court issued an Order which denied DCPP

custody, but continued their care and supervision over D.P., and further directed the
continuation of Services.

13.

On or about May 25, 2012, J.P attended a Child Welfare mediation with

defendants Condo, Lewis-Johnson and others which was followed by the Court's entry of a
Mediated Consent Order under which DCPP undmiook the responsibility to facilitate the
selection and certification of an appropriate child care provider for D.P. through Urban
League.
14.

On or about June 26, 2012, J.P. attended a Family Team meeting at which

time defendants Condo and Lewis-Johnson identified Mr. Fitz Spring ("Spring") as an
appropriate child'' care provider for D.P. This meeting led to a "Family Agreement" which

provided that DCPP would train and certifY Spririg as a child care provider for D.P. through
Urban League.
15.

During the period of June 2012 through August 2012, defendants Condo and

Lewis-Johnson pressured J.P. to consent to DCPl:' obtaining custody of D.P. in order to place

him in Spring's home as a therapeutic foster home. Specifically, Condo and Lewis-Johnson
represented to J.P. that Spring -- and his intimate partner who shared his home, Wright --were
both certified child care providers who had been properly screened, trained and approved to
woik with special needs children; that their Jersey City home was licensed and certified as a
therapeutic home for special needs children; that both Spring and Wright were dedicated to
helping disabled children as they worked in a fucility for disabled children; and that they were
both trained and experienced in handling severely autistic children like D.P. Furthermore,
Condo and Lewis-Johnson represented to J.P. that if she consented to DCPP having custody
of D.P. and then placement of D.P. with Spring and Wright, that she would have regular
phone contact and visitation with D.P. aod would remain fully involved in D.P.'s health care,
education, aod other matters concerning his welfare.
16.

On or about September 11, 2012, DCPP filed an Amended Verified

Complaint seeking care, supervision aod custody of D.P. with the plao to place him with
Sprmg and Wright as the therapeutic foster home. DCPP represented to the Court that J.P.
agreed that it was in D.P.'s best interests to place liim with such individuals who were highly
skilled in working with severely autistic children with special needs.
17.

On or about September 14, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting DCPP

legal aod physical custody, as well as care and supervision of D.P., while graoting J.P ..
visitation rights.

DCPP'S PLACEMENT OF D.P. IN TilE FOSTER HOME

OF SPRING AND WRIGHT
18.

On or about September 17, 2012, Condo removed D.P. fi:om J.P.'s home and

placed D.P. in the foster home of Spring and Wright in Jersey City, Hudson County, New
Jersey.
19.

From approximately September 17, 2012 through December 18, 2012, DCPP

had physical and legal custody of D.P. during which time period it maintained D.P.'s
placement in the foster home of Spring and Wright.
20.

Prior to and throughout the course of the aforesaid placement, DCPP and the

Individual Defendants knew that Spring and Wright requested that other young boys be
placed in their home and did proceed to place two other young boys in their home during the
same time as D.P.'s placement.
REPORTS OF PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE DURING
DCPP'S PLACEMENT OF D.P. WITH WRIGHT AND SPRING
21.

On or about September 28, 2012, Condo accompanied J.P. to visit D.P. at his

after-school program. At this visit an aide -- who has known and worked with D.P. for
several years-- notified J.P. that she strongly believed D.P. was being physically abused and
sexually molested in the foster home and requested that J.P seek to have him examined by a
physician and inunediately removed from the foster home. The aide told J.P. that D.P.'s
diapers contained bloody stool, and that his buttocks were bn.rised and "messed up" consistent
with sexual molestation. J.P. inunediately relayed the aide's concems of physical abuse and
sexual molestation, as well as the aide's observations of D.P.'s bloody stool and bruised
buttocks to Condo. Condo assured J.P. that she would investigate this report and have D.P.
examined by a doctor, Condo also instructed J.P. to report these allegations and infonnation

---

-----~--

---- I

to the aide's supervisor, which J.P. did. Upon information and belief, defendants failed to
conduct a proper investigation of this report of physical and sexual abuse, and J.P. was never
apprised as to the outcome of any investigation of this report.
22.

On or about October 1, 2012, defendants DCPP, Condo and/or the Individual

Defendants received a report :fiom the school nurse that D.P. came to school with a black eye
and a bruise on his head "the size of a golf ball". Upon info1mation and belief, defendants
failed to conduct a proper investigation of this report ofinjmies to D.P., and J.P. was never
apprised as to the outcome of any investigation of this report.
23.

On or about October 2, 2012, defendants DCPP, Condo and/or the Individual

Defendants received a report from the school nurse that D.P. came to school with two (2)
scratches over the center of his neck and upper chest. Upon information and belief, defendants
failed to conduct a proper investigation of this report of injuries to D.P., and J.P. was never
apprised as to the outcome of any investigation of this report.
24.

On or about October 9, 2012, J.P. attended a meeting at DCPP's Bayom1e

office with defendants, Condo and Lewis-Johnson. During the meeting .J.P. reported her
concerns that D.P. was being sexually molested and physically abused while in Spring and
Wright's foster home. Specifically, J.P. reported that she observed D.P. had swelling and
bruising in his anal area and buttocks, as well as bruises and scratches to other parts of his
body. J.P. further advised defendants that she was being denied contact and visitation with
D.P. and that Mr. Spring was not responding to her requests for information about D.P. J.P.
was assured by defendants that her concerns of sexual molestation and physical abuse would
be investigated and D.P.'s safety and welfare would be inlmediately addressed. Upon
infom1ation and belief, defendants failed to conduct a proper investigation of this report of

sexual molestation and physical abuse of D.P., and J.P. was never apprised as to the outcome
of any investigation of this report.
On or about November 19, 2012, defendants DCPP, Condo, Anazodo, and/or

25.

the Individual defendants, received a report from the school nurse iliat D.P. had bruising on
his neck and right cheek IiCPP's investigator, Theresa Anazodo, responded to the .school
where she observed and photographed the reported bruises, along with additional bruises and
scratches on D.P.'s abdomen and upper chest.

Upon infonnation and belief, defendants

failed to conduct a proper investigation of this report of D.P.'s irguries, and J.P. was never
apprised as to the outcome of any investigation of this repp1t.
26.

On or about December 17, 2012, defendants DCPP, Condo and/or the

Individual Defendants, were advised by the school nurse that D.P. was brought to school sick,
appeared to have an ear infection, was in pain and needed to see a physician. However, Spring
advised the school nurse that he was unable to bring D .P, to a physician as requested by her.
Later that day, Wright picked up D.P. from school. The sohool nurse did not report seeing
any bruises on D.P.'s face at the time he was taken from the schoql by :Mr. Wright.
27.

On or about December 18, 2012, J.P. was able to see D.P. and observed

extensive bruising on D.P.'s right eye and that he was sick. J.P. inlmediately notified Condo
of D.P.'s bruised right eye and texted her a photograph. Condo did not respond to D.P.'s
reported concerns.
28.

On or about December 19, 2012, J.P. returned to Spring and Wright's foster

home to bring D.P. medicine at which time she was advised by the Spring that D.P. had been
removed by DCPP the prior evening, on December 18, 2012, along with the other boys in the
horne.
8

DCPP'S PLACEMENT OF D.P. IN TilE FOSTER HOME OF MS. FELLER

AND REPORTS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE AND NEGLECT
29.

Thereafter, for approximately two weeks

followin~ the Dec-...ember

18, 2012

removal of D.P. from Spring and Wright's foster home, DCPP, Condo and Lewis-Johnson
failed to respond to J.P.'s repeated requests for infOJmation as to D.P.'s whereabouts and the
condition of his health. Finally,.Condo advised J.P. that D.P. had been placed in the foster
home of Angela Feller in Jersey City (hereinafter "Feller" foster home). Condo assured J.P.
that this foster home was safe and appropriate for D.P. and could accommodate his special
needs.
30.

From approximately December 18, 20lz"through June 26, 2013, DCPP and

the Individual Defendants maintained D.P. in Feller's foster home which placement was not
.a therapeutic foster home, nor were the foster caretakers trained or certified to handle the
special needs ofD.P.
31. Throughout the course ofD.P.'s placement in Feller's foster home, J.P. observed
signs of physical abuse and neglect, all of which she reported to DCPP and the Individual
Defendants, including but not limited to the following:

A. D.P'. 's hair and clothing smelled of cigarette 'smoke and the foster parents
smoked around D.P. which aggravated his asthma;
. B. D.P. had burns on his body which were circular and appeared to be
cigarette burns;
C. D.P. had cuts and bruises on multiple parts of his body, including on his
back and the backs of his legs;
D. D.P.hadbitemarks;
E. D.P. appeared to have not been fed, as he was thin and hungry; and

F. D.P.'s was dirty and unkempt; hls clothing was dirty and foul-smelling
despite her having brought clean clothing, towels and toiletries forD .P.
J.P. requested that the Individual Defendants investigate these reports and take all steps
necessary to ensure D.P.'s health, safety and welfare. However, defendants maintained
their placement of D.P. in thls foster home.
32.

On or about June 20, 2013, DCPP sent J.P. a letter that they had investigated a

April 22, 2013 report of suspected abuse and neglect for bite marks and multiple scratches on
D.P.'s body. DCPP concluded that the scratch marks were "self-inflicted" and that another
child in the foster home had bitten D.P. DCPP concluded that D.P. was not abused or
neglected, but that he was harmed or placed at risk of harm by virtue of the biting incident and
that a licensing or supervising authority may take additional action.
33.

On or about June 26, 2013, without any notice to J.P. of any application or

court hearing, the Court issued an order transferring legal and physical custody back to J.P.
with DCPP retaining care and supervision. Condo and J.P. then went to Feller's fuster home
to remove D.P. from their care and they brought D.P. to a residential treannent facility for
disabled children where he remains to date.
34.

On September 12, 2013 the. Court issued an Order terminating the DCPP

litigation.
35.

As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' actions and omissions with

regard to their custody, care, supervision and foster placement of D.P., D.P. was caused to
have been physically abused, sexually abused, and otherwise sustained serious and/or
permanent injuries and other losses and damages.

10

FIRST COUNT
CLAIM FOR DEPRIVATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AS
PROTECTED BY THE 14m AMENDMENT UF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S. C. 1983

36.

Plaintiff repeats all allegations heretofore plead as though fully set forth

herein at length.
37.

At all relevant times, DCPP representatives, employees or agents, Condo,

Lewis-Johnson, Anazodo, and John Does (1-10) ("Individual Defendants"), were acting
under color of law in connection with their care, custody, supervision and control over
D.P. and each are sued herein in their official capacity; as well as individual and personal
capacity.
38.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees

each child in the custody of the State -- including D.P. -- substantive due process rights,
which include but are not limited to:
(a)

Right not to be banned, physically, emotionally, developmentally or

otherwise;

(b)

Right to protection from harm;

(c)

Right to receive medical care, treatment and other services as

warranted;

(d)

Right to receive care, treatment and services consistent with

competent
professional judgment;

(e)

And other rights as secured by the 8th Amendment and 14th

Amendment.

39.

At all relevant times, D.P. had the right to have the foregoing fundamental

rights safeguarded and protected by virtue of his special relationship with DCPP and the

11

Individual Defendants who exercised care, custody, supervision, and control over him,
including but not limited to placement in foster homes.
4D.

At all relevant times, D.P. had the right to have the foregoing fundamental

rights safeguarded and protected and to not have them violated by virtue of the Individual
Defendants' actions and/or omissions which constitute a state created danger, which
include but are not limited to, maintaining his placement in foster homes which they knew
or should have known to be dangerous, harmful and otherwise unsuitable for D.P.,
particularly given his disabilities and special needs.

41.

At all relevant times, the Individu!)l Defendants acted with gross

negligence, delibemte indifference, and wanton and willful disregard of the health, safety,
welfare and rights ofD.P, and in such an egregious, objectively unreasonable and arbitrary
marmcor such as to shock the oonscience in violating D.P :'s foregoing rights, including but
not 'limited to placing D.P. in foster homes under the circumstances presented; having
received multiple reports of D.P. being subjected to physical abuse, sexual abuse and
neglect and nevertheless failing to immediately remove D.P. and secure him proper
medical assessment imd care; in failing to properly investigate the allegations and reports
of abuse and neglect; and in withholding of necessary medical care and treatment. The
Individual Defendants' conduct exposed D.P. to foreseeable hann in violation of his civil
and constitutional rights as protected by the 8th and 14th Amendments.

As such the

aforementioned acts and omissions constitute an actionable violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

42.

As a diiect and proximate result of the foregoing deprivation of D.P.'s civil

and constitutional rights by the DCPP Individual Defendants, D.P. was caused to suffer
serious and permanent injuries, and has sustained other losses and damages,

12

WHEREFORE, plaintiff J.P., as parent and Legal Guardian of D.P., demands

judgment against defendants, Renee Condo, Donna Lewis-Johnson, Theresa Anazodo, and
John Does (1-10) for compensatory damages, punitive iiamages (as to the Individual
Defendants only), interest, attomey's fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court
deems equitable and just.
SECOND COUNT
VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS UNDER
CIDLD PLACEMENT BILL OF RIGHTS
4 3.

Plaintiff repeats the allegations heretofore pled as though fully set forth

herein at length.

44.

From on or about September 17, 2012 through June 26, 2013, D.P. was in

the custody, care, supervision and control of defendants, DCPP, Condo, Lewis-Johnson,
Anazodo, John Does and/or ABC Entities and as such D.P. had certain rights as
enun1erated and guaranteed byN.J.S.A. 9:6B-1, et. seq., the Child Placement Bill ofllig:hts
Act ("CPBR").
45.

The CPBR provided D.P. with the right to be free from physical and

psychological abuse; to have and receive adequate, safe and appropriate food, clothing and
housing; to receive adequate and appropriate medical care; to be :fi.ee from unwarranted
physical restraint and isolation; and to have services of a high quality that are designed to
maintain and advance his mental and physical well-being.
46.

At all relevant times, DCPP and the Individual Defendants acted in a

negligent, grossly negligent, careless, reckless manner, and/or in a palpably unreasonable

13

mmmer; breaching their affirmative duties tb protect D.P. and not violate his rights as
protected by the CPBR.
47.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions and/or omissions by the

Individual Defendants, D.P. was caused to have his rights protected by the CPBR violated, to
suffer serious and permanent injuries, and has sustained other losses-and dmnages.
48.

DCPP is directly and/or vicarionsly liable for the acts and/or omissions of the

Individual Defendants which violated D.P.'s rights under the CPBR.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff J.P. as legal guardian and parent of D.P. demands judgment
against defendants State of New Jersey, Department of. Children and Families, Division of
Child Protection and Permanency, Renee Condo, Donna Lewis Johnson, Theresa Anazodo,
Joim Does (1-10) and/or ABC Entities (HO), individually and/or jointly, for compensatory
dmnages, punitive dmnages (as to the Individual Defendants only), interest, attcmeys' fees,
costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

THIRD COUNT
NEGLIGENCE AGAINST TBE DCPP
AND ITS' EM:PLOYEES AND AGENTS
49.

Plaintiff repeats all the allegations heretofore pled as though fully set forth

herein at length.
50.

From September 17, 2012 through June 26, 2013, DCPP had legal and

physical custody of D.P. during which time DCPP and the Individual Defendants were under
a duty to place D.P. in an appropriate therapeutic home with persons who were. properly
screened, licensed, certified, and trained to care for D.P. and his specific medical conditions.

14

51.

From September 17, 2012 through June 26, 2013, DCPP and the Individual

Defendants were under a duty to follow the law, policies and procedures which govern DCPP,
as well as the Court's Orders, which include but are not limited to the following:
(a)

to timely and properly investigate all reports of alleged physical abuse,

sexual abuse and neglect;

(b)

identifY 'red flag' signs of abuse and/or neglect;

(c)

recognize the 'high risk' factors present and handle this as a 'high risk'
case which included conferencing the case with the casework
supervisor and the Deputy Attorney General;

(d)

conduct safety and risk assessments;

(e)

develop, implement and monitor a safety plan that addressed the risks
posed;

(f)

refer D.P. and the case to the Regional Diagnostic and Treatment
Center for evaluation, assessment and other services;

(g)

obtain all medical records for D.P. and speak to

other treating physicians and medical providers;

(h)

remove D.P. :fiOJn inappropriate and unsafe foster homes;

(i)

conduct monthly and/or other periodic home visits;

G)

provide all services required by law, DCPP policies and procedures, as

well as the Court's orders;

(k)

notifY tbe prosecutor's office and law enforcement of the allegations as

presented; and

(1)

otherwise act to protect and ensure the health, safety and welfare of

52.

At all relevant times, DCPP and the Individual De:fundants acted in a

his pediatrician and

D.P.

negligent, grossly negligent, careless, reckless or otherwise palpably unreasonable manner in

that they breached the policies, practices, procedmes and protocol established by State laws,
15

DCPP's policies and procedures, and the- Court's Orders. The vvrongful actions and/or
omissions include but are not limited to failing to provide D.P. with appropriate and safe
therapeutic foster home placements; failing to properly respond-to and investigate all reports
of physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and suspicious injuries; failing to treat these reports
as a high risk case; failing to refer D.P. and the case to the Regional Diagnostic and Treatment
Center; failing to ensure that D.P. was protected from foreseeable harm; failing to remove
D.P. :from the foster homes; and otherwise failing to act to protect D.P. from foreseeable risks
of harm, including imminent risks of harm.
53.

As a direct andproximate result of the foregoing breaches of duty by the

Individual Defendants, D.P. was physically abused, sexually abused, neglected and in other
ways injured.
54.

Defendant DCPP is vicariously liable for the vvrongful acts of the Individual

Defendants as its agents, servants, employees and/or representatives whose actions and/or
Dmissions occurred within the scope of their employment or retention.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff J.P., as parent and legal guardian of D.P. demands judgment
against defendants, State of New Jersey, Department of Children and Families, Division of
Child Protection and Permanency (fmmerly known as the Division of Youth and Family
Services), Renee Condo, Donna Lewis Johnson, Theresa Anazodo, John Does (1-10) and/or
ABC Entities (1-10), individually and/or jointly, for compensatory damages, punitive
damages (as to the fudividual Defendants only), interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and such
other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

16

FOURTH COUNT
NEGLIGENT SU.PERVISION!TRAJNING/HIRI!'~G AGAJNST THE STATE
Plaintiff repeats all the allegations heretofore pled as though fully set forth

55.

herein at length.
56.

At all times herein mentioned, the DCPP had a duty to properly hire, train,

. screen, retain, and supervise its agents, servarits, employees and/or representatives to ensure
that they were competent and properly providing those seiVices as required by the Jaw,
DCPP's policies and procedures, and the Comt's Orders to ensure the health, safety, wel:fu.re
and protection of children inclu~ing D.P.
57.

At all times herein mentioned, DCPP was negligent and breached its duty of

care in failing to properly hire, train, screen and supeiVise the Individual Defendants who
were inadequately trained, inadequately supervised and otherwise incompetent and as a result
they failed to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to ensure the health, safety, welfare and
protection ofD.P.
58.

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches of duty by these

defendants, D.P. was physically abused, sexually abused, neglected and in other ways injured.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff J.P., as parent and legal guardian of D.P. demands judgment
agamst defendant, State of New Jersey, Department of Children and Faruilies, Division of
Child Protection and Permanency (formerly known as the Division of Youth and Family
Services) for compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and such other
relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jmy on all issues so triable.
17

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

David A. Mazie, Esq. and Beth G. Baldinger, Esq. are hereby designated as trial
counsel in this matter.
DEMAN!! FOR ANSWERS TO UNIFORM INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiffs hereby demand that defendants provide certified answers to Forms
C and C(3) Unifonn Interrogatories in accordance with R. 4:17-1 (b) of the New Jersey
Rules of Court.
DEJ.ViANJ) FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE

In accordance with R. 4:10-2, defendants must provide complete copies of their

insurance policies and declaration sheets demonstrating coverage within thirty (30) days of
service of this Complaint.

RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that to the best of roy Jmowledge the matter in controversy is not
the subject of any action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding. I
hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of
the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: October 28, 2015

(H:\DAM\J.P.\Complaint 10-22-15)

18