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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2838-23
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
A.R-S.,
Respondent-Appellant. ___________________________
Submitted December 1, 2025 – Decided January 5, 2026
Before Judges Sabatino and Natali.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Division of Child Protection and Permanency, Docket No. AHU 22-0426.
Schwartz, Hanna, Olsen & Taus, PC, attorneys for appellant (Christopher Olsen, of counsel and on the brief).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Aaron1 is the biological father of R.S. (Raisa), and A.S. (Aisha) born
November 11, 2009, and April 19, 2012, respectively. He challenges the May
20, 2024 final agency decision by the Department of Children and Families,
Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) that affirmed an
Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) determination substantiating him for the
sexual abuse of Raisa. Because we discern nothing arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable concerning the Division's decision, we affirm.
I.
In February 2022, PESS-Bridgewater Behavioral Health Services
contacted the Division to report that Raisa, then twelve, had disclosed that Aaron
physically abused her. She made the disclosure while being psychiatrically
evaluated for suicidal ideations. Raisa was also being treated for depression and
anxiety.
A Division investigator interviewed Raisa shortly thereafter and she
disclosed Aaron had also sexually abused her. The investigator immediately
1 We use initials and pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the minor child and the parties included. R. 1:38-(d)(12). A-2838-23 2 referred the allegations to the county prosecutor's office, which resulted in
Detective Carolina Moreno interviewing Raisa. During that interview, Raisa
informed the detective her father did "stuff to [her]" like hitting, kicking and
slapping her. Raisa also stated Aaron frequently touched her inappropriately on
her chest, stomach, back, "butt," legs, and "sometimes he got like really close to
down there." She informed the detective that Aaron also forced her to sit on his
lap and while on his lap, Aaron would pull her near "his thing" and she would
feel it moving while he repositioned his body. Throughout the interview Raisa
used an anatomically correct doll to detail Aaron's actions.
Raisa next informed Detective Moreno that when the family lived
together, her mother and father slept separately "across the house" and she and
her sister took turns sleeping with each parent. She reported recalling that
sometimes when she slept in her father's bed, she also felt his "thing " "moving
a little" against her legs and "butt" and she attempted to move away from him,
but Aaron pulled her closer. Although she initially thought it was her father's
hand rubbing against her, she eventually saw "it was his thing." When she told
him to stop, he told her he was just "joking around." Again, using an
anatomically-correct doll and pictures, Raisa identified where Aaron touched
her with his "thing", and confirmed it was his penis.
A-2838-23 3 Raisa also detailed that, when she was eight or nine, while sleeping in her
father's bed, she awoke and found him on top of her moving "up and down" and
his "thing" was going inside her which she said "[k]ind of hurt." According to
Raisa, Aaron was breathing heavily, and he told her not to move. At the time
Raisa stated she was unaware about "sex and stuff," and she was confused why
her father was behaving this way and did not know what he was doing was "bad
or anything."
Additionally, Raisa told Detective Moreno Aaron "raped" her when she
was nine and stated he stuck his "thing . . . down there," "like having sex." She
stated she was alone with Aaron, and he suggested they play "cops and robbers."
She described how Aaron tied her to a chair with zip ties and "search[ed]" her
and he then he put "his thing in [her] thing" after spreading her legs. She
described his "thing" as "kind of hard" and that a "clear like whitish" substance
came out and went "all over" her "down there." Raisa explained that by "down
there" she meant the front of her genital area. When Raisa asked her father to
remove the zip ties because they hurt, he refused and only cut them off when he
heard her mother coming home. Raisa stated she did not tell anyone about the
abuse nor did she tell her father to stop because she was afraid of him.
A-2838-23 4 Detective Moreno later recorded a phone call between C.F. ("Claire"),
Raisa's biological mother, and Aaron during which Aaron denied all of the
allegations and stated Raisa fabricated the cops and robbers story . The police
also interviewed Aaron during which he again denied all of Raisa's allegations
and submitted to a lie detector test, which was determined to be truthful, but
inconclusive according to a Division report.
Claire confirmed during the interview that she saw Aaron play roughly
with the children and also, they would take turns sleeping with each of them
when Claire and Aaron began sleeping in separate rooms. She could not recall
coming home to see Raisa tied to a chair with zip ties but confirmed they had
zip ties in the home.
Claire also informed a caseworker that Raisa had experienced some blood
"spotting" at the age of nine, this incident being around the same age Raisa
reported Aaron had "raped" her. Aaron acknowledged during the interrogation
that he was the parent who stayed home with the children when they were sick
but denied he ever acted inappropriately with Raisa. Although he denied Raisa
slept in his bed, he nevertheless confirmed that Aisha would sleep in his room
"more often."
A-2838-23 5 Raisa's individual therapist, Cynthia Goldberg, deemed Raisa's statements
about Aaron's sexual abuse believable based on her gradual disclosure of
information and the fact she remembered more details, which she explained was
typical of how children disclose sexual abuse. Based on her evaluation, Raisa
attended a psychosocial evaluation at the Dorothy B. Hersh Regional Child
Protection Center (Hersh) with Rebecca Pluciniak, Psy.D., who diagnosed Raisa
with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood and suspected
child sexual abuse.
Raisa next attended an evaluation at Hersh with Gladibel Medina, M.D.,
to address treatment recommendations. During her evaluation Raisa reported to
Dr. Medina that when she was in the third grade her father touched her "front
genital area" with his hand and his penis which was painful and caused some
bleeding.
Raisa also disclosed to Dr. Medina that on one occasion Aaron held a knife
to her neck. Based on that disclosure, Detective Moreno reinterviewed Raisa.
During that second interview, Raisa stated Aaron held a "big, orange knife" to
her throat during the "cops and robbers" incident and told her he would cut her
with it if she moved and was "so scar[ed]." Raisa also disclosed that Aaron
recently held a small, orange-handled curved knife to her throat at his restaurant
A-2838-23 6 when she spilled hummus. She also stated he threatened to cut her head off if
she did it again. Raisa also told the detective her father called her "a whore," "a
slut," and "the 'b' word," when she made mistakes and said she was a "drama
queen" if she cried after he hit her.
In July 2022, the Division concluded its investigation and informed Aaron
it had substantiated him for the sexual abuse allegations and concluded it
deemed Raisa's claims of physical abuse were not established. Aaron disputed
the substantiation finding, requested a hearing, and the matter was accordingly
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
ALJ Kimberley M. Wilson presided over the multi-day hearing where the
Division presented the testimony of caseworker Marcel Rogers, Detective
Moreno, and the expert psychological testimony of Dr. Pluciniak. Aaron
testified on his own behalf and presented Dr. Medina as an expert in pediatrics
with a child abuse specialty.
Det. Moreno confirmed she had investigated other cases with similar
allegations of sexual abuse involving children Raisa's age, and those cases did
not always have evidence of injury to the child's vagina because such injuries
depended on many factors. When the Division played the videos of Raisa's two
interviews with Det. Moreno, Aaron asked to be excused from the courtroom.
A-2838-23 7 Dr. Pluciniak testified that Raisa was uncomfortable and nervous when
discussing Aaron's sexual abuse, which she described as typical in similar
situations. She also stated Raisa's psychological testing detailed she suffered
from depression, trauma, withdrawal, and anxiety, along with daydreaming and
nightmares. Dr. Pluciniak stated her role was only to assess Raisa's mental
health and not to conclusively determine if she was sexually abused. However,
during her assessment of Raisa's functioning, Dr. Pluciniak stated Raisa's
symptoms, testing and self-reporting were consistent with having been sexually
abused and she accordingly diagnosed her with suspected sexual abuse.
During her testimony, Dr. Medina confirmed that during her examination,
Raisa did not evidence any signs that a penis entered her vagina. Nevertheless,
and based on her over two decades of experience, Dr. Medina stated that children
often report "having sex" if any "contact of the genital region" occurs and not
only when the penis enters the vaginal canal. She therefore opined her
examination was not inconsistent with Raisa's statement she had "sex", as young
children often use the term to describe when the penis enters only the front of
the vagina, which is still painful and may cause some bleeding. Dr. Medina
further explained that when a penis enters further near the hymen it would be
"super painful" in a child as young as Raisa.
A-2838-23 8 Further, Raisa did not disclose any vaginal penetration by Aaron when Dr.
Medina evaluated her and as a result, Dr. Medina explained she did not address
with Raisa exactly what she meant as her vagina, a term which Dr. Medina
nevertheless stated most children use for "their front private part." She also
explained she did not use the term "intact" when describing Raisa's hymen
because the term does not provide meaningful medical detail. Rather, she
described Raisa's hymen as having a smooth border with no signs of trauma,
which, however, was consistent with the characterization of the hymen as
"intact."
Aaron testified and stated Raisa moved out of the home when she was
"eight, eight and a half" and never returned to sleep there since, although he did
take his daughters to trips out of state. He expressly denied ever abusing Raisa
and stated he first heard about the allegations when Claire told him over the
phone after Raisa made her disclosures to the Division. He attributed Raisa's
false allegations on Claire's influence over Raisa, and so Claire could obtain
leverage in their divorce.
ALJ Wilson issued an initial decision in which she affirmed the Division's
substantiation of sexual abuse. The ALJ found all witnesses, except Aaron,
credible. The ALJ Judge found Raisa's detailed description during her interview
A-2838-23 9 with Detective Moreno, credible as Raisa "stated clearly what she believes
occurred" and the statements were consistent with her report to Dr. Pluciniak
and Rogers.
Rogers' testimony was found to be "professional and direct," and Det.
Moreno, who the ALJ noted remained calm during her testimony, was
"professional and straightforward." She summarily characterized Dr.
Pluciniak's testimony as "clear" and "professional" and her diagnosis of
suspected child abuse supported by Raisa's symptoms. ALJ Wilson also
determined Dr. Medina was "professional and direct." She also explained that
because Dr. Medina's testimony about Raisa's hymen being intact did not "lend
itself to a factual determination" as to whether Raisa was subjected to sexual
assault, she disregarded it.
Contrariwise, the judge determined Aaron was not credible and expressly
rejected as unsupported his allegations that Raisa fabricated her abuse. ALJ
Wilson based her adverse credibility findings, in part, on Aaron's refusal to even
listen to "the allegations that [Raisa] made against him" and instead choosing to
leave the courtroom when Raisa's interviews were played. By absenting himself
from the proceedings, the judge explained Aaron evaded the court's and cross-
examination on anything raised in the interviews. She explained he was
A-2838-23 10 effectively "permitted to deny the allegations without allowing an analysis of
his credibility or reactions when confronted with the evidence against him." The
judge concluded Aaron sexually abused Raisa on two occasions—once while
she slept his bed and the second time during the "cops and robbers" incident.
Accordingly, the ALJ found the Division's proofs sufficient for a substantiated
finding under N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)(1). Further, the ALJ found that based on
its factual findings that Aaron sexually abused Raisa, no mitigating factors
applied. N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.4(a)(2).
The Assistant Commissioner for the Division affirmed the Division's
sexual abuse finding against Aaron and accepted all of the ALJ's findings. The
Assistant Commissioner determined the record, the ALJ judge's credibility and
factual findings determinations fully supported a substantiated finding by a
preponderance of the evidence that Aaron "engaged in multiple acts of sexual
molestation" of Raisa. This appeal followed.
II.
In his first argument, Aaron challenges the Division's decision and
maintains it was based on the ALJ's, and Assistant Commissioner's , flawed
factual findings that disregarded Dr. Medina's testimony, and which specifically
ignored inconsistencies in Raisa's testimony regarding the cops and robbers
A-2838-23 11 incident. On the former point, he specifically argues, based on Dr. Medina's
testimony, Raisa's statements that his alleged sexual assault involved his
penetration of Raisa's vaginal area were impossible as Dr. Medina stated Raisa's
hymen as "annular with smooth border" which she later acknowledged meant
was "intact." As to the cops and robbers incident, Aaron maintains Raisa's "story
changed every time she recounted her story" to the prosecutor's office and
despite these glaring inconsistencies, ALJ Wilson inexplicably found Raisa's
testimony credible.
In his second point, Aaron maintains the Division's substantiation finding
was erroneous because it was based on Raisa's videotaped statement that was
not "corroborated" or otherwise supported by substantial credible evidence in
the record. Specifically, he argues Dr. Medina confirmed that "Raisa never
disclosed any allegations of penetrative sexual abuse," and because Raisa did
not testify, under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4), "her prior out-of-court statements be
corroborated" which the record fails to establish. We are unpersuaded by all of
Aaron's arguments.
Judicial review of quasi-judicial agency determinations is limited.
Allstars Auto. Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157
(2018) (citing Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14,
A-2838-23 12 27 (2011)). "[A]n appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary
and capricious standard." Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm'n,
237 N.J. 465, 475 (2019) (citing In re Stallworth, 298 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)).
"An agency's determination on the merits 'will be sustained unless there is a
clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair
support in the record.'" Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys.,
2019 N.J. 369, 380 (2014) (quoting Russo, 206 N.J. at 27). The party
challenging the administrative action bears the burden of making that showing.
Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014).
"Appellate courts owe deference to the trial court's credibility
determination . . . because it has 'a better perspective than a reviewing court in
evaluating the veracity of a witness.'" C.R. v. M.T., 248 N.J 428, 440 (2021)
(quoting Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015)). The deferential standard is
applied "because an appellate court's review of a cold record is no substitute for
the trial court's opportunity to hear and see the witnesses who testified on the
stand." Balducci v. Cige, 240 N.J. 574, 595 (2020). We apply "de novo review
to an agency's interpretation of a statute or case law." Russo, 206 N.J. at 27
(citing Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 173 N.J. 502, 549 (2002)); see
also Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992)
A-2838-23 13 ("Agencies . . . have no superior ability to resolve purely legal questions,
and . . . a court is not bound by an agency's determination of a legal issue . . . ."
An "abused or neglected child" is defined under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(3)
as "a child less than [eighteen] years of age whose parent or guardian . . .
commits or allows to be committed an act of sexual abuse against the child ."
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(a) defines parent or guardian in pertinent part as: "any natural
parent, adoptive parent, resource family parent, stepparent . . . or any person
who has assumed responsibility for the care, custody, or control of a child . . . ."
Under regulations associated with Title IX, allegations that a child has
been abused or neglected can either be "substantiated," "established," "not
established," or "unfounded." N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c); see also N.J. Dep't of
Children and Fams. v. R.R., 454 N.J. Super. 37, 40 (App. Div. 2018) (citing
Dep't of Children & Fams. v. D.B., 43 N.J. Super. 431, 441-42 (App. Div.
2015)). An allegation shall be "substantiated" if the preponderance of the
evidence indicates that a child is an "abused or neglected child" as defined by
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 and either the investigation indicates the existence of any of
the circumstances outlined under N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.4 or substantiation is
warranted based on consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors
listed in N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.5. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(d), "[a] finding of
A-2838-23 14 either established or substantiated shall constitute a determination by the
Department that a child is an abused or neglected child pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-
8.21."
Mindful of the legislative and regulatory scheme as set forth above, and
because we find substantial, credible evidence in the record to support the
Division's findings, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the ALJ's
determination and the Assistant Commissioner's final decision. We add the
following comments.
The ALJ had the opportunity to hear testimony, review exhibits, and make
credibility determinations and her determinations as to witness credibility are
entitled to our deference in light of her careful consideration of the facts and
detailed, supported findings of fact. See M.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families,
479 N.J. Super. 471, 482 (App. Div. 2024). With respect to Raisa's testimony,
upon which the ALJ relied to support the substantiation finding, the court
specifically found she recounted Aaron's abuse when she slept in his bed and
during the cops and robbers incident. ALJ Wilson determined as to Raisa's
statements her "account of what occurred is substantially similar to what she
told Marcel Rogers and [Dr.] Pluciniak." The ALJ also found, upon
consideration of all the evidence that Raisa's videotaped interview was "credible
A-2838-23 15 as she stated clearly what she believes occurred." In sum, the ALJ carefully
considered Raisa's testimony, including any inconsistencies, and found that it
was substantially similar to the narrative she offered to two other investigators.
We discern no basis to disturb these findings.
We also reject Aaron's argument that the ALJ ignored exculpatory
evidence that "[Medina] testified that Raisa never disclosed any allegations of
penetrative sexual abuse, and her physical examination revealed [Raisa's] hymen
was intact—findings which contradict [Raisa's] detailed claims of repeated
sexual penetration", and that Raisa's uncorroborated extrajudicial statements
were not sufficient to make a finding of abuse. Aaron mischaracterizes and
ignores the rest of Dr. Medina's testimony that children lack a complete
understanding of their physical bodies and what occurs to them during sexual
abuse. Aaron's argument further disregards Dr. Medina's testimony that children
refer to their entire front genital region as their "vagina," and report "having sex"
as scenarios involving "contact of the genital region." Aaron's argument fails to
address that Raisa's description of "having sex" is consistent with Dr. Medina's
testimony of how children report abuse that is not vaginal penetration. In sum,
contrary to Aaron's arguments, Dr. Medina's physical examination of Raisa was
consistent with Raisa's report of "having sex".
A-2838-23 16 With respect to his claim the ALJ ignored exculpatory evidence, we reject
it for the reasons previously stated. It is clear from our review of the record that
the ALJ and the Assistant Commissioner considered all the evidence and found
Raisa's version more credible than Aaron's.
We also find unpersuasive Aaron's reliance on N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4).
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4) provides that "previous statements made by the child
relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence;
provided, however, that no such statement, if uncorroborated, shall be sufficient
to make a fact finding of abuse or neglect." N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4). Thus,
according to Aaron an uncorroborated previous statement is not solely sufficient
to find abuse. The Division maintains the corroboration requirement does not
apply to administrative proceedings and, even if it does, sufficient evidence
exists in the administrative record corroborating Raisa's out of court statements.
"A child's statement need only be corroborated by '[s]ome direct or
circumstantial evidence beyond the child's statement itself.'" N.J. Div. of Child
Prot. & Permanency v. A.D., 455 N.J. Super. 144, 157 (App. Div. 2018)
(alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. N.B.,
452 N.J. Super. 513, 522 (App. Div. 2017)). "The most effective types of
corroborative evidence may be eyewitness testimony, a confession, an
A-2838-23 17 admission or medical or scientific evidence." Ibid. (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth
& Fam. Servs. v. L.A., 357 N.J. Super. 155, 166 (App. Div. 2003)). Such
indirect evidence has included "a child victim's precocious knowledge of sexual
activity, a semen stain of a child's blanket, a child's nightmares and
psychological evidence." N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. I.B., 441
N.J. Super. 585, 591 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam.
Servs. v. Z.P.R., 351 N.J. Super. 427, 436 (App. Div. 2002)). Evidence of "age-
inappropriate sexual behavior" can also provide the necessary corroboration
required under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4). Z.P.R., 351 N.J. Super. at 435-36. In
N.B., the court found no corroboration where the child “denied thoughts of self-
harm; his mood was normal and appropriate; he was cooperative during his
evaluation; . . . and he denied problems with appetite, sleep, or mood." 452 N.J.
Super. at 522.
Here, even accepting Aaron's position that corroboration is required to
support an administrative substantiation finding, we are satisfied that the ALJ's
and Assistant Commissioner's determinations did not rely solely on Raisa's
statements. Rather, there was ample evidence and testimony to corroborate
Raisa's allegations of sexual abuse. Indeed, the ALJ considered Raisa's
A-2838-23 18 testimony in tandem with testimony by Detective Moreno, Dr. Pluciniak,
caseworker Marcel Rogers, Dr. Medina, and the documentary evidence.
First, Raisa's report of her abuse is corroborated by her description of
Aaron's penis as "hard," a "clear like whitish" substance coming out of it, and
of Aaron's heavy breathing during the abuse. Next, Raisa's statements are
corroborated by Claire's confirmation the parents slept in separate bedrooms,
the children took turns sleeping with each parent, Aaron was the parent who
stayed home when a child was sick, Aaron interacted roughly with the children,
and there were zip ties in the home.
Further, Raisa's statement that she experienced bleeding after her father
touched her "front genital area" was corroborated by Claire's report of Raisa
having premature spotting at the same age as the incident. Raisa's report was
also corroborated by Dr. Pluciniak's testimony about the results of Raisa's
evaluation, which showed the psychological impact of the abuse on her, trauma
symptoms, anxiety, depression, and nightmares. I.B., 441 N.J. Super. at 591.
Additionally, Dr. Medina's testimony corroborated Raisa's description of what
occurred as consistent with how young children experience sexual abuse.
Further, Aaron's testimony was also heard and considered in opposition. In
determining the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony, the ALJ found
A-2838-23 19 all except Aaron to be credible. On this record we are persuaded the Division's
decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
To the extent we have not otherwise addressed the parties' arguments, it
is because we have considered them and concluded they are without sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2838-23 20