Full Opinion

RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3523-25 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.C., (deceased) Defendant, and J.R.,1 Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF N.R., a minor. _______________________ Argued September 14, 2026 – Decided November 4, 2026 1 We use initials and fictitious names to protect the identities of the children and parties and to preserve the confidentiality of these proceedings. R. 1:38- 3(d)(12). Before Judges Berdote Byrne and Torregrossa- O'Connor. On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FG-14-0017-25. James D. O'Kelly, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney; James D. O'Kelly and Katharine Pierce, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs). Mary L. Harpster, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, on the brief). Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for minor (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, on the brief). PER CURIAM In this interlocutory appeal, which we granted from a trial where Department of Child Protection and Permanency ("DCPP") seeks to terminate the parental rights of J.R. ("Jay"), the father of N.R. ("Nick"), Jay appeals from the trial court's order denying his request for access to an Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit ("IAIU") report and related documents concerning an allegation made against one of Nick's resource parents with respect to another A-3523-25 2 child in that resource parent's care. Jay first learned of the existence of the report because it is indirectly referenced in DCPP contact sheets provided in discovery. At trial, DCPP questioned its caseworker during direct testimony regarding the contents of the IAIU report but did not disclose the report or the investigative summary of the report to defendant. Defendant requested these records, and the trial court determined the IAIU records are not automatically discoverable by parties to a Guardianship trial, and instead must be reviewed by the trial court, in camera, to determine their relevance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(6), as occurred here. The trial court then determined the reports, although relevant, would not affect the outcome of the Guardianship trial and denied their disclosure. We agree with defendant, to the extent an IAIU document is retained in the ordinary course in DCPP's file, that document must be provided to all parties' counsel for use in a Guardianship matter pursuant to Rule 5:12-3. We also agree with defendant, regardless of whether the document exists in the DCPP file, if DCPP relies upon an IAIU investigation in any way during a Guardianship trial, Rule 5:12-3 mandates disclosure of any records pertaining to that investigation to all parties' counsel. However, we agree with the trial court, if a document is not kept in the DCPP file in the normal course, or relied upon by DCPP during A-3523-25 3 a Guardianship trial, but retained by the Division of Children and Families ("DCF") in a separate IAIU file or elsewhere, the analysis set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(6) must be applied to determine whether the document should be produced in discovery. Specific to the matter before us, the record is unclear as to whether the investigative summary or report of the IAIU investigation was maintained in the DCPP file. Regardless, DCPP relied on the IAIU investigation at the Guardianship trial when it questioned the caseworker about it, and both the report and the investigative summary, with proper redactions to ensure the confidentiality of the abuse reporters and others in the resource parent's household, must be made available to all parties for sole use in the Guardianship matter. Accordingly, we vacate the May 13, 2026 order of the trial court denying disclosure of the IAIU investigative summary and IAIU investigative report, and order DCPP to furnish both to all parties, with appropriate redactions, before resumption of the Guardianship trial. I. The record before us demonstrates Nick was born in December 2020. On October 8, 2021, the trial court placed Nick under the care and supervision of DCPP. That order was occasioned by reports of Jay's domestic violence and A-3523-25 4 marijuana use, both in Nick's presence. Six weeks later, Nick's mother, A.C., died of a drug overdose. On November 17, 2021, DCPP effectuated an emergency Dodd removal of Nick.2 For the next two-and-a-half years, Jay underwent treatment to address his history of substance use and domestic violence. In the interim, Nick was placed first with Jay's cousin, and on October 6, 2022, with the current resource parents. Jay was eventually reunited with Nick for a brief period of time between May 24 and September 13, 2024, at which point DCPP again effectuated an emergency Dodd removal of Nick, prompted by Jay's relapse of substance abuse. Nick was placed with the same resource parents. In January 2025, the trial court approved a permanency plan to terminate Jay's parental rights followed by adoption by the current resource parents and a co-equal plan of reunification of Nick with Jay. However, almost a year later, on December 18, 2025, the trial court changed the permanency plan to the single goal of termination of parental rights followed by adoption by the current resource parents because Jay had continued to test positive . . . after completing substance abuse treatment. He had not completed 2 A Dodd removal is an emergency removal of a child from a parent's custody without a court order according to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to 8.82, known as the Dodd Act. N.J. Div. of Youth and Fam. Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17, 26 n.11 (2011). A-3523-25 5 services. He had not been able to secure stable housing or employment. [Nick] has been in resource care for four years, with the exception of a period of reunification with [Jay] that ultimately resulted in another removal and needs permanence. The Guardianship trial began on March 10, 2026. While preparing for trial, Jay's attorney discovered two contact sheets that included comments by Nick's resource father expressing concern to the caseworker regarding an IAIU3 investigation against him. The IAIU investigation concerned an allegation of abuse by Nick's resource parent against another child in his resource care and was apparently deemed unfounded. Several witnesses presented by the parties at the Guardianship trial testified they were unaware of an IAIU investigation against the resource parents. On April 22, DCPP questioned its caseworker during direct testimony regarding whether the contents of the IAIU report gave her any cause for concern. The following colloquy ensued: Q. With regard to the resource parents, are you aware as to whether or not there [has] been any IAIU investigation? A. There has. 3 Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit ("IAIU") is a child protective service unit within DCF charged with "investigating allegations of abuse or neglect in childcare facilities, resource homes, and other out-of-home care settings." N.J.A.C. 3A:10-1.3. A-3523-25 6 Q. Was [Nick] the subject of the investigation? A. No. Q. Would [Nick] have been interviewed as part of that investigation? A. Yes. .... Q. Were you assigned that investigation? A. I was not. Q. As [Nick's] case worker, would you be privy to the information in that investigation? A. We were privy to the referral and . . . the results of the investigation. Q. Upon conclusion, were there any concerns for [Nick] remaining in that home? A. No. At that point, Jay objected to the caseworker's testimony regarding the IAIU report, to which he had not been given access, and requested to review the report and related records. The trial court determined it would review the IAIU report in camera before deciding whether to release it to Jay's counsel and the Law Guardian. The court rendered its decision soon after, declining to release the records. The court found the reports, although relevant to the Guardianship trial, did not meet the standard of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(6) because they did not contain A-3523-25 7 information that would affect the outcome of the trial. However, in its order, the court prudently granted a stay of the trial, pending any party's right to seek interlocutory leave to appeal, noting the lack of legal guidance on this issue. We granted the within accelerated leave to appeal. II. Defendant argues the IAIU report is a part of the DCPP file, pursuant to DCF's own internal guidance and, pursuant to R. 5:12-3, he is entitled to access the entire DCPP file, regardless of whether the Division intends to rely up on a particular document. He also argues the facts of this case warrant release of all relevant IAIU records, in the alternative, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a. The Law Guardian also claims the IAIU report is part of the Division's case file and is discoverable pursuant to R. 5:12-3. Further, she argues it is relevant to the Guardianship trial and underlying basis for the expert evaluations regarding the resource parents, requiring disclosure. In fact, the Law Guardian claims she cannot effectively represent Nick without access to any relevant IAIU records. DCPP argues the IAIU is a separate department within DCF, and the IAIU file is kept separately from the DCPP file. The caseworker is provided only the investigative summary, which documents that an allegation of abuse or neglect A-3523-25 8 has been made, and the investigation's subsequent findings. It argues the confidentiality of the reporter and the rights of both the resource parent s and the child in resource care require the documents be kept from disclosure unless they meet the strict requirements of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a. III. We review "a trial court's ruling on a motion for disclosure of privileged or confidential records under an abuse of discretion standard." DCPP v. M.C., 456 N.J. Super. 568, 585 (App. Div. 2018). No deference is given to the court's legal conclusions, however, which we review de novo. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. B.H., 460 N.J. Super. 212, 218 (App. Div. 2019). Disclosure of confidential records in a DCPP matter is subject to an array of rules and case law, and we begin our analysis by acknowledging the relevant legal principles involved. First, all DCF records are confidential. N.J.S.A. 9:6- 8.10a(a) generally provides all records "shall be kept confidential," but outlines several exceptions to the rule. Pertinent here, the statute provides a confidentiality exception for disclosure to: A court or the Office of Administrative Law, upon its finding that access to such records may be necessary for determination of an issue before it, and such records may be disclosed by the court or the Office of Administrative Law in whole or in part to the law guardian, attorney, or other appropriate person upon a A-3523-25 9 finding that such further disclosure is necessary for determination of an issue before the court or the Office of Administrative Law. [N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(6).] Thus, any party seeking access to DCF records must meet the requirements of the statute. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(6) permits disclosure of otherwise confidential DCF records if a court finds such disclosure "is necessary for determination of an issue before the court." "[T]rial courts must look to whether disclosure of [DCF] records is essential to the resolution of any issue before the court, as well as whether the information contained in those records is available through any other source through diligent investigation[.]" In re Z.W., 408 N.J. Super. 535, 540 (App. Div. 2009). However, Rule 5:12-3 provides an exception for all records in Title 30 Guardianship proceedings and Title 9 Abuse and Neglect proceedings. See In re A, 277 N.J. Super. 454 (App. Div. 1994); N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. I.B., 441 N.J. Super. 585 (App. Div. 2015). In these proceedings, all DCPP files are available to the parties' attorneys. R. 5:12-3 outlines the Division's discovery obligations and entitles any party to all documents DCPP intends to rely upon at trial, as well as inspection of DCPP's entire case file: All relevant reports of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency and other reports of experts or other A-3523-25 10 documents upon which the Division intends to rely shall be provided to the court, to counsel for all parties, and to any self-represented party on the first return date of the Order to Show Cause, if then available, or as soon as practicable after they become available. The Division's case file shall also be available for inspection to the attorneys for the parties without court order. All other discovery by any party shall be permitted only by leave of court for good cause shown. Thus, DCPP must provide the court and all parties all documents in its case file it intends to rely upon at trial and must make its entire case file available to the attorneys for the parties for inspection. 4 DCPP argues an IAIU investigative report is separate and distinct from the "DCPP" case file regarding a particular family. Investigations are not performed by the same employees who are the caseworkers working with the family; they are conducted by a separate investigative unit within DCF. However, an investigative summary of the report is shared with the caseworkers who are working with the family. A manual maintained by the DCF titled New Jersey Department of Children and Families Policy Manual ("DCF Manual") "establishes where to 4 Because of the confidential nature of all DCPP records and the closed proceedings in Title 9 and Title 30 cases, the parties are not entitled to copies of DCPP records, which are provided only to their attorneys. Self-represented litigants are entitled to inspect the case file. A-3523-25 11 appropriately file client information into the CP&P case file." N. J. Dept. of Child. & Families, New Jersey Department of Children and Families Policy Manual: Child Protection and Permanency, Vol. III, Ch. E (3), 1 (2017), https://policy.dcf.nj.gov/app/file/CPP-III-E-3-100.pdf. The manual lists how various documents should be organized within the file and expressly notes "IAIU Final Reports" are included within the file under a section entitled "Third Party Information and Correspondence." Id. at 4-5. In fact, the DCF Manual addresses IAIU processes and investigations at some length. See, e.g., N. J. Dept. of Child. & Families, New Jersey Department of Children and Families Policy Manual: Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit – Introduction to IAIU, Vol. I, Ch. A(1)(100), 1 (2023), https://policy.dcf.nj.gov/app/file/IAIU-I-A-1-100.pdf ("This issuance establishes policy and procedure related to the investigation of allegations of institutional abuse and neglect."); N. J. Dept. of Child. & Families, New Jersey Department of Children and Families Policy Manual: Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit – Case Recording and Agency Forms, Vol. I, Ch. A(1)(200), 2 (2023), https://policy.dcf.nj.gov/app/file/IAIU-I-A-1-200.pdf ("The investigation file (paper original) is located in the IAIU Regional Office, if the incident was Not Established or Unfounded."). A-3523-25 12 The IAIU report in this case addresses an allegation of physical abuse by Nick's resource parent against another child who was also being cared for by the resource parent at the time he was caring for Nick.5 The report does not involve allegations of abuse against Nick, and it is unclear from the record whether the report was included in Nick's DCPP file. The caseworker testified she was provided only the investigative summary. Therefore, the second sentence of Rule 5:12-3 does not entitle the parties to the IAIU report unless the document was maintained in DCPP's case file regarding Nick. It does entitle the parties to the investigative summary because it was provided to the DCPP caseworker, who kept it in the DCPP file in the normal course of business. Moreover, the IAIU report is discoverable pursuant to the first sentence of Rule 5:12-3 because DCPP relied upon it at trial. Rule 5:12-3 provides, "[a]ll relevant reports of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency and other reports of experts or other documents upon which the Division intends to rely shall be provided" to opposing counsel. In this case, DCPP effectively relied on the report and related materials when it questioned the caseworker about the investigation and whether she had any concerns. That line of questioning 5 We were provided with a confidential appendix containing the IAIU documents and conducted an independent review of those documents. A-3523-25 13 "opened the door" for other parties to question the caseworker regarding the extent and fulsomeness of the IAIU investigation. Rule 5:12-3 mandates disclosure of any document DCPP intends to rely upon at trial. Allowing DCPP to pursue a line of questioning regarding whether the caseworker had concerns about Nick in resource care after learning of the IAIU investigation, without affording Jay or the Law Guardian access to the reports, undermines Rule 5:12-3 and prejudices defendant's ability to represent the child's best interest at trial. It prevents defendant and the Law Guardian from exploring the breadth of the investigative findings. It also impedes the Law Guardian's ability to adequately represent her client. Thus we conclude, Rule 5:12-3 mandates the discovery of IAIU records contained in DCPP's file, including records regarding the child's current resource parent with respect to any IAIU investigations conducted while the child is in that resource parent's care, to the parties in a Guardianship proceeding. We note that unless and until a parent's rights are terminated, biological parents are entitled to be made aware of any allegations of abuse concerning their child while in the Division's custody. We also agree with the Law Guardian and conclude, if a resource parent is the subject of an IAIU investigation while the child who is the subject of the Guardianship action is in that resource parent's A-3523-25 14 care, any expert evaluation relied upon by the Division at trial should have taken the IAIU allegations and investigation into consideration in rendering its recommendations. Although failure to do so shall not render the expert's report or testimony inadmissible, it may affect the weight given to the expert's testimony and report by the trial court. The order of May 13, 2026, is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court. DCPP shall furnish Nick's counsel and the Law Guardian the investigative report, investigative summary, and all related records, proper ly redacted to ensure the confidentiality of the abuse reporters and others in the resource parent's household, for sole use in the Guardianship matter. We do not retain jurisdiction. However, we stay our ruling, sua sponte, and the mandated disclosure for fifteen days from the date of this opinion, to enable any aggrieved party to pursue relief in the Supreme Court. A-3523-25 15