C.H. v. Department of Children and Families

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0773-24

C.H. and S.H., a minor child,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILIES, DIVISION OF

CHILD PROTECTION AND

PERMANENCY, DEPARTMENT

OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

MORRIS WEST LO, STATE OF

NEW JERSEY, D.H., C.H., CH.H.,

CRISTINA PEREZ, ROSALBA

AVILA, JENNIFER BOUDREAU,

FELIPE SANCHEZ, D.W., JOSEPH

J. REISENMAN, M.D., and ALLISON

STRASSER WINSTON, PH.D.,

Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted January 12, 2026 – Decided March 19, 2026

Before Judges Sabatino, Walcott-Henderson and

Bergman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law

Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-1932-23.

Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys for appellants

(Michael Confusione, of counsel and on the brief).

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for

respondents Department of Children and Families,

Division of Child Protection and Permanency, Cristina

Perez, Rosalba Avila, Jennifer Boudreau and Felipe

Sanchez (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney

General, of counsel; Phoenix N. Meyers, Deputy

Attorney General, on the brief).

Deininger & Associates LLP, attorneys for respondent

Ch.H. (Christopher L. Deininger, on the brief).

Ruprecht Hart Ricciardulli & Sherman, LLP, attorneys

for respondent Dr. Joseph J. Reisenman, M.D. (Michael

R. Ricciardulli, of counsel and on the brief; Kristin J.

Brummer, on the brief).

Malapero Prisco Klauber & Licata, LLP, attorneys for

respondent Dr. Alison S. Winston, Ph.D. (Richard J.

Teer, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs C.H.1 and her child S.H. 2 ("Sara") appeal from the dismissal of

their multi-count civil complaint against defendants Department of Children and

1

We reference C.H. as plaintiff in this opinion.

2

We use initials and pseudonyms for the minor child and the non-government

parties because the underlying proceedings involved the Department of Children

and Families, Division of Child Protection and Permanency ("Division"). R.

1:38-3(d)(12).

A-0773-24

2

Families, Division of Child Protection and Permanency (collectively "the

Division"), Christina Perez, Rosalba Avila, Jennifer Boudreau, and Felipe

Sanchez (collectively referenced as the "Division employees"), plaintiff's

brother defendant Ch.H.3 ("Charles") and defendants Dr. Joseph J. Reisenman

and Dr. Alison S. Winston following a series of investigations, institution, and

ultimate dismissal of legal proceedings filed by the Division against plaintiff.

After our de novo review of the record and application of the relevant legal

principles, we affirm for the detailed and cogent reasons set forth in the written

opinion of Judge Louis S. Sceusi.

I.

This action arose from the investigation and legal proceedings instituted

by the Division against plaintiff concerning the care of her daughter Sara

following a series of pediatric health concerns and complicated family

dynamics. In November 2021, plaintiff observed swelling in Sara's left knee,

which prompted visits to the Morristown Medical Center emergency room, Holy

Name Hospital, and her pediatrician, Dr. Reisenman. Despite various medical

assessments, the cause of Sara's symptoms was unclear, and she continued to

3

Ch.H. ("Charles") is plaintiff's brother.

A-0773-24

3

experience physical symptoms over subsequent weeks leading to further

consultations with medical specialists.

As the medical investigation proceeded, family tensions escalated,

particularly between plaintiff and her own parents, defendants D.C. ("Danielle")

and C.H. ("Carter"), who frequently accompanied plaintiff to the child's medical

appointments. During repeated health visits, Sara eventually disclosed that

defendant D.W. had kicked her in the knee, prompting plaintiff to report the

incident to the police.

After Sara's evaluation at various hospitals, Dr. Reisenman reported

suspected Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy 4 to the Division concerning

plaintiff's care for Sara. Following the referral, the Division engaged in an

investigation and ultimately instituted legal proceedings against plaintiff under

N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 ("Title 9") and N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12 ("Title 30"), seeking care

and supervision of Sara based on allegations of child abuse and neglect. In

4

Munchausen syndrome by proxy, now commonly known as factitious disorder

imposed on another, is a serious form of abuse and a mental health condition. It

occurs when a caregiver—typically a parent—falsifies, exaggerates, or induces

illness or injury in a person under their care, such as a child in order to gain

attention, sympathy, or validation for themselves. Factitious Disorder Imposed

on Another ("FDIA"), Cleveland Clinic,

www.myclevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9834-factitious-disorder-imposed-

on-another-fdia#overview (last visited March 10, 2026).

A-0773-24

4

connection with these proceedings, plaintiff—by court order—was evaluated by

Dr. Winston, a psychologist retained by the Division. Sara was also subject to

evaluations and continued monitoring.

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Reisenman submitted a letter recanting his earlier

suspicions of plaintiff and attributed his initial referral to "bad information" he

received concerning plaintiff. According to plaintiff, such "bad information"

originated from misrepresentations by her family members, primarily plaintiff's

mother, Danielle. Despite this letter, the Title 9 and Title 30 proceedings

continued for several months thereafter.

After months of litigation and several trial adjournments, the Division

ultimately withdrew its complaint against plaintiff, resulting in the court finding

no allegations were substantiated. Although she was exonerated, plaintiff

alleged significant harm had already occurred. As a result of the proceeding,

she claimed that as a result of being listed in the Child Abuse Record

Information Registry, her ability to work with children was temporarily

restricted, she incurred in excess of $200,000 in legal costs and suffered

reputational and emotional damages.

On October 31, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Law Division

against defendants. The complaint included nine counts alleging malicious

A-0773-24

5

prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, malicious

abuse of legal process, violations under the New Jersey Law Against

Discrimination, negligent hiring and retention, violation of the New Jersey Civil

Rights Act, failure to train and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In December 2023 and January 2024, all defendants filed motions to

dismiss plaintiffs' complaint,5 asserting that the complaint failed to state a claim

based on several legal grounds. Following oral argument held on August 5,

2024, the trial judge issued a detailed opinion granting all defendants' motions

and dismissing the complaint with prejudice as to the Division, Division

employees, Dr. Reisenmann, Dr. Winston and plaintiff's brother Charles.

The judge concluded that all claims against the moving defendants were

legally insufficient, barred by statutory or common law immunities/privileges

or failed to allege facts meeting the required legal elements. The court further

found no factual or legal basis on which discovery could cure these deficiencies

in the pleadings.

On appeal, plaintiff contends:

5

Plaintiff's parents, Danielle and Carter also filed a motion to dismiss the

complaint. However, the motion was deemed moot by the court pursuant to a

stipulation of dismissal filed prior to the motion return date, leaving Charles as

the sole remaining family member-defendant.

A-0773-24

6

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN GRANTING THE

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE

PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT.

II.

We apply a de novo standard of review to a trial judge's order dismissing

a complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e). See Stop & Shop Supermarkets Co. v. Cnty.

of Bergen, 450 N.J. Super. 286, 290 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Teamsters Loc.

97 v. State, 434 N.J. Super. 393, 413 (App. Div. 2014)). Under the rule, we owe

no deference to the motion judge's conclusions. Rezem Fam. Assocs., LP v.

Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103, 114 (App. Div. 2011). "[O]ur

inquiry is limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the

face of the complaint." Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116

N.J. 739, 746 (1989). "The complaint must be searched thoroughly 'and with

liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned

even from an obscure statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if

necessary.'" Baskin v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC, 246 N.J. 157, 171 (2021)

(quoting Printing Mart, 166 N.J. at 746). However, "[a] pleading should be

dismissed if it states no basis for relief and discovery would not provide one. "

Rezem Fam. Assocs., 423 N.J. Super. at 113.

A-0773-24

7

Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude the trial judge's

factual findings and legal conclusions properly applied the Rule 4:6-2(e)

standard as to all counts of plaintiff's complaint and affirm the trial judge's order

substantially for the reasons set forth in his written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

We add the following comments to amplify upon selective portions of the

judge's reasoning.

We further uphold dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, as the court

correctly applied: (1) the legal immunities to the Division and Division

employees; (2) the legal immunities and privileges to Drs. Reisenman and

Winston; and (3) the statute of limitations and the specificity requirements to

the defamation claims against Charles.

A.

We begin by discussing the immunities provided to a public entity and its

employees. As a general matter, the Division "is charged with the responsibility

to investigate all allegations of child abuse or neglect." S.C. v. New Jersey Dept.

of Child. & Families, 242 N.J. 201, 211 (2020) (citing N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)).

Under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act ("TCA"), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3,

"public entities [such as the Division] shall only be liable for their negligence

within the limitations of this act and in accordance with the fair and uniform

A-0773-24

8

principles established herein." N.J.S.A. 59:1-2. The approach of the TCA is to

broadly limit public entity liability. See Jones v. Morey's Pier, Inc., 230 N.J.

142, 154 (2017). The TCA is strictly construed to effectuate that purpose.

McDade v. Siazon, 208 N.J. 463, 474 (2011). Generally, courts are instructed

to find immunity for public entities with liability as the exception. Lee v.

Brown, 232 N.J. 114, 127 (2018). Individual public employees are liable for

injuries caused by their act or omission to act to the same extent a private person

would be. N.J.S.A. 59:3-1.

The TCA grants absolute immunity from liability to public entities and

their employees for injuries resulting from a failure to enforce the law. Lee, 232

N.J. at 127-28. N.J.S.A. 59:3-5 provides: "A public employee is not liable for

an injury caused by his adoption of or failure to adopt any law or by his failure

to enforce any law." In contrast, public employees are entitled to qualified

immunity when they are enforcing the law. N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 ("A public

employee is not liable if he acts in good faith in the execution or enforcement

of any law.").

"[T]he critical distinction between the qualified, good-faith immunity of

[N.J.S.A. 59:3-3] and the absolute immunity of section [N.J.S.A. 59:3-5] is

action as opposed to nonaction with respect to the enforcement of the law."

A-0773-24

9

Bombace v. City of Newark, 125 N.J. 361, 368 (1991). Qualified good faith

enforcement immunity "applies 'only when an act has taken place with

knowledge of the facts and the law,'" whereas failure-to-enforce immunity

"applies when there is no 'act.'" Ibid. (quoting Marley v. Borough of Palmyra,

193 N.J. Super. 271, 293 (Law Div. 1983)).

To pierce qualified immunity under the TCA, a plaintiff must prove more

than ordinary negligence. Canico v. Hurtado, 144 N.J. 361, 365 (1996).

Qualified immunity is not provided to public employees under certain

circumstances as set forth at N.J.S.A. 59:3-14(a), providing public employees

are subject to full liability "if it is established that [their] conduct was outside

the scope of [their] employment or constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual

malice[,] or willful misconduct." The willful misconduct exception is intended

to target "a public employee guilty of outrageous conduct[.]" Velez v. City of

Jersey City, 180 N.J. 284, 291 (2004) (quoting Margolis & Novack, Title 59:

Claims Against Public Entities, cmt. on N.J.S.A. 59:3-1(c) (2004)). Thus, one

"traditional formulation of willful misconduct has required 'a showing that there

has been a deliberate act or omission with knowledge of a high degree of

probability of harm and reckless indifference to consequences.'" Leang v. Jersey

City Bd. of Educ., 198 N.J. 557, 584 (2009) (quoting Berg v. Reaction Motors

A-0773-24

10

Div., Thiokol Chem. Corp., 37 N.J. 396, 414 (1962)). Neither "[c]arelessness,

unreasonable conduct or even noncompliance with substantive law" are

necessarily sufficient to strip an employee of immunity. Van Engelen v.

O'Leary, 323 N.J. Super. 141, 154 (App. Div. 1999).

In addition, in order to impose liability of a public employee under the

TCA it also "depends on whether the conduct of individuals acting on behalf of

the public entity was ministerial or discretionary." Est. of Gonzalez v. City of

Jersey City, 247 N.J. 551, 571 (2021) (quoting Henebema v. S. Jersey Transp.

Auth., 219 N.J. 481, 490 (2014) (citing N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(d))). "When a public

entity's or employee's actions are discretionary, liability is imposed only for

'palpably unreasonable conduct.'" Ibid. (quoting Henebema, 219 N.J. at 495).

Liability for ministerial acts "is evaluated based on an ordinary negligence

standard." Ibid. (quoting Henebema, 219 N.J. at 490).

"A 'discretionary act . . . calls for the exercise of personal deliberations

and judgment, which in turn entails examining the facts, reaching reasoned

conclusions, and acting on them in a way not specifically directed.'" S.P. v.

Newark Police Dept., 428 N.J. Super. 210, 230 (App. Div. 2012) (omission in

original) (quoting Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485, 495 (1985)).

A-0773-24

11

In contrast, "a ministerial act, which is not granted immunity under the

TCA, is an action 'which a person performs in a given state of facts in a

prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard

to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done.'"

Gonzalez, 247 N.J. at 571-72 (quoting S.P., 428 N.J. Super. at 231).

Here, the actions of the Division and Division employees, including the

allegations made in the complaint against plaintiff, were subject to the bar

against liability because their acts were discretionary. In addition, the Division

and its employees were entitled to the qualified immunity protections of the

TCA. We agree with the trial judge that the complaint's allegations against the

Division and its employees involved discretionary functions of the Division and

its employees because they relied upon the statements and information provided

through the investigation and medical reports and made personal judgments to

institute proceedings against plaintiff. We further conclude qualified immunity

protections were appropriately granted by the judge to the Division and its

employees. No genuine issues of material fact in the record disputed that the

Division and its employees acted in good faith and duly considered the reported

information they obtained from their investigation, resulting in the filing of the

A-0773-24

12

complaint against plaintiff enforcing the provisions of Title 9 and Title 30 based

on plaintiff's alleged abuse of Sara.

Additionally, as defendants noted, plaintiff describes the Division and its

employees' conduct as negligent, not willful, in their complaint. They assert

that the Division and its employees "neglected to investigate and address

discoveries," and that "[t]hese biased judgments led to negligent decisions and

actions instituted and perpetuating Title 9 and Title 30 actions against

[plaintiff]." This argument undermines plaintiff's claims, as negligent conduct

is inherently not intentional or deliberate. As mentioned above, our case law

clearly rejects the notion that carelessness or unreasonable conduct is sufficient

to strip public employees of immunity. Van Engelen, 323 N.J. Super. at 154.

Therefore, plaintiff has not presented prima facie proofs of the elements of

N.J.S.A. 59:3-14(a) to pierce the qualified immunity protections afforded to the

Division and its employees under the TCA.

B.

We next address plaintiff's claims against Dr. Winston and Dr.

Reisenman. We conclude, as did the trial judge, that plaintiff's claims against

Dr. Winston were barred by the litigation privilege. This privilege shields "any

communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by

A-0773-24

13

litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the

litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action."

Buchanan v. Leonard, 428 N.J. Super. 277, 286 (App. Div. 2012) (citing

Loigman v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Middletown, 185 N.J. 566, 578 (2006)).

The privilege is not confined to the courtroom and "extends to all statements or

communications in connection with the judicial proceeding." Ruberton v.

Gabage, 280 N.J. Super. 125, 133 (App. Div. 1995) (citations omitted). The

litigation privilege "may be extended to statements made in the course of judicial

proceedings even if the words are written or spoken maliciously, without any

justification or excuse, and from personal ill will or anger against the party

defamed." DeVivo v. Ascher, 228 N.J. Super. 453, 457 (App. Div. 1988)

(citation omitted).

Additionally, "[p]retrial communications by parties and witnesses are

protected 'to promote the development and free exchange of information and to

foster judicial and extra-judicial resolution of disputes.'" Hawkins v. Harris,

141 N.J. 207, 218 (1995) (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d

1119, 1129 (6th Cir. 1990)). "The only limitation which New Jersey places upon

the privilege is that the statements at issue 'have some relation to the nature of

A-0773-24

14

the proceedings.'" Rabinowitz v. Wahrenberger, 406 N.J. Super. 126, 134 (App.

Div. 2009) (quoting Hawkins, 141 N.J. at 215).

We conclude the allegations in the complaint and motion record do not

support that Dr. Winston purposefully or maliciously provided false statements

to the Division concerning plaintiff. In addition, her statements clearly related

to the legal proceedings. Dr. Winston was retained by the Division to serve as

an expert in the litigation, and her conclusions were manifestly founded upon

her good faith professional observations based on her review of the medical and

investigatory records. We therefore conclude the judge's dismissal of all claims

against Dr. Winston was not error.

Turning to Dr. Reisenman, we conclude he was immune from civil

liability pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10, which states: "[a]ny person having

reasonable cause to believe that a child has been subjected to child abuse,

including sexual abuse, or acts of child abuse shall report the same immediately

to the Division [] by telephone or otherwise." The Act provides civil and

criminal immunity to individuals who report possible abuse or neglect of

children pursuant to the Act. See N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.13 (stating"[a]nyone acting

pursuant to this act in the making of a report [of child abuse] under this act shall

have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be

A-0773-24

15

incurred or imposed."). "[T]he Legislature intended that 'reasonable cause to

believe' that a child has been subjected to child abuse requires a reasonable

belief based on the facts and circumstances known to the person on the scene."

L.A. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs., 217 N.J. 311, 327 (2014).

The record clearly indicates that Dr. Reisenman abided by his statutory

duty to report suspected child abuse because an objective review of the evidence

supported a reasonable belief that child abuse had occurred under these

circumstances, including multiple visits by Sara to his office and other medical

providers, unexplained/unclear causes for Sara's injuries and statements from

Danielle concerning alleged abuse of Sara by plaintiff. Additionally, the record

does not contain any evidence that Dr. Reisenman's report to the Division was

made with the sole purpose of damaging plaintiff or that it was malicious. In

fact, his recantation letter supports his overall objectivity, not bias or malice

towards plaintiff. Therefore, we conclude the trial judge's dismissal of claims

against Dr. Reisenman based on the statutory immunity provided by N.J.S.A.

9:6-8.13 was not error.

Although we certainly can appreciate plaintiff's frustration with the

underlying litigation, including the substantial costs she incurred to defend the

Division's legal action and the emotional toll upon her, our state's jurisprudence

A-0773-24

16

has stressed the importance of the litigation privilege and the immunities

provided by N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.13.

Given the importance to our justice system of ensuring

free access to the courts, promoting complete and

truthful testimony, encouraging zealous advocacy,

giving finality to judgments, and avoiding unending

litigation, it is not surprising that . . . the litigation

privilege[] has been referred to as "the backbone to an

effective and smoothly operating judicial system."

[Hawkings v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207, 222 (1994) (citing

Silberg v. Anderson, 786 P.2d 365, 370 (1990)).]

Likewise, the Legislature recognized an overriding need to encourage the

reporting of child abuse, by not only providing immunity to persons making

such reports, but also by making it a disorderly persons offense to fail to report

where there is "reasonable cause to believe that an act of child abuse has been

committed. . . ." N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.14. We conclude the judge appropriately

recognized the overall purposes of the above privileges and immunities and his

dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the doctor defendants based on such was

not error.

III.

We now briefly address plaintiffs' defamation claim against her brother

Charles—the only remaining defendant-family member at the time of the

disposition of the motion. Based on our de novo review, we concur with the

A-0773-24

17

reasons expressed by the trial judge concerning this claim and conclude the

defamation claims against Charles fail as being both untimely and lacking the

required specificity.

Under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-3, "[e]very action at law for libel or slander shall

be commenced within [one] year next after the publication of the alleged libel

or slander." This reason alone was a sufficient basis for the trial judge to dismiss

the defamation claims against Charles. Plaintiff's complaint was filed on

October 31, 2023, well more than a year after the alleged statements were

claimed to be made in February 2022 and from the filing of the Division's

complaint against plaintiff on March 4, 2022.

However, even if we were to consider plaintiff's defamation claims as

timely under the discovery rule, we conclude the complaint failed to attribute

any defamatory statement specifically published by Charles and specify the

content of the defamatory statements made by him. The complaint primarily

alleged the defamatory statements were made by her mother, Danielle, whose

stipulated dismissal from this case is not before us.

To plead a claim a valid claim for defamation, plaintiffs are required to

specifically allege the actual statements that serve as the basis of the claim and

when they were made. See Darakjian v. Hanna, 366 N.J. Super. 238, 248-49

A-0773-24

18

(App. Div. 2004) ("In the case of a complaint charging defamation, plaintiff

must plead facts sufficient to identify the defamatory words, their utterer and

the fact of their publication. A vague conclusory allegation is not enough.") ;

see also Russo v. Nagel, 358 N.J. Super. 254, 269 (App. Div. 2003) ("In order

to properly plead a claim for [defamation] the defamatory words must be

identified."). Plaintiff's complaint was insufficient under these legal standards

and appropriately dismissed by the trial judge.

To the extent we have not addressed any of plaintiff's remaining

arguments, we conclude those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-0773-24

19