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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0615-24
G.G.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent-Respondent. ___________________________
Argued October 7, 2025 – Decided November 25, 2025
Before Judges Susswein and Chase.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities.
Jared B. Oberweis argued the cause for appellant (Hinkle Prior Fischer & Oberweis, attorneys; Jared B. Oberweis, on the briefs).
Laura N. Morson, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Laura N. Morson, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Petitioner G.G.1 appeals the September 19, 2024 final agency decision of
the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) denying her an opportunity
to administratively appeal a partner agency's removal of a two-way audio-video
communications system in her private apartment, notwithstanding that the
cameras were required pursuant to two Individual Service Plans (ISP) 2
authorized by DDD. After reviewing the record in light of the governing legal
principles, we reverse the final agency decision and remand for DDD to hear
petitioner's administrative appeal.
I.
We discern the following pertinent facts and procedural history from the
record. G.G. is a 40-year-old woman diagnosed with mild intellectual disability
and unspecified pervasive development disorder. She resides in an apartment
1 We use initials to maintain the confidentiality of these proceedings. R. 1:38(f). 2 The ISP is a required planning document developed by DDD to organize and approve the services a person receives. It is prepared by a support coordinator with input from the individual and their family and is regularly updated as the individual's needs change. The ISP directs and prior authorizes all DDD services and service providers. See NJ Division of Developmental Disabilities, Supports Program and Community Care Program Policies and Procedures Manuals: A Quick Guide for Families (Mar. 2020). The ISP form lists the rights and responsibilities of an individual receiving supports and services through DDD, including "a fair hearing if for any reason . . . waiver services are denied, reduced, suspended [,] or terminated." A-0615-24 2 within a supervised housing community offering integrative housing services
provided by the Jewish Family and Children's Service (JFCS), an agency of the
Jewish Federation of Southern New Jersey (the Federation). JFCS provides
services to residents pursuant to their ISPs approved by DDD. The DDD's
Human Rights Committee (HRC) is an advisory body whose recommendations
are intended to provide guidance to the agencies that partner with DDD.
G.G. was declared incapacitated by the Camden County Superior Court,
and her father and brothers were appointed as her co-guardians. She utilizes a
two-way audio-video communication system (the cameras) within her private
apartment to facilitate check-ins with her guardians. Pursuant to her December
6, 2023 and August 4, 2024 ISPs, G.G.'s "apartment safety/security system must
include [two]-way interactive video and audio with her guardians" for her daily
support. (Emphasis added). On or about April 19, 2024, for reasons not stated
in the record, the Federation decided that it would no longer permit G.G. to use
the cameras in her apartment.
On June 6, 2024, the HRC held a teleconference to review the matter and
offer a recommendation to the Federation. HRC recommended that cameras not
be permitted in G.G.'s apartment. On July 18, 2024, G.G. sent a statement of
disagreement with supporting documentation to the Chief Executive Officer of
A-0615-24 3 the Federation. In a July 29, 2024 email, the Federation's Director of Special
Needs stated that the HRC emphasizes a resident's right to privacy within their
dwelling unit, and "having cameras inside the residence creates an unreasonable
intrusion into [G.G.'s] expectation of privacy, and that of the other residents."
The Federation, pursuant to the HRC's guidance, removed the cameras from
G.G.'s apartment on August 5, 2024.
On August 22, 2024, G.G. submitted a Request for Appeal to the DDD
Administrative Practice Office contesting the Federation's removal of the
cameras and the HRC's recommendation. Eight days later, DDD responded that
the issues presented are not appealable under N.J.A.C. 10:41A-4.1(b) and
N.J.A.C. 10:48-1.1 because DDD was not involved in the dispute between the
Federation and G.G. The Division advised, "[d]isagreements between service
provider agencies and their clients should be resolved through the provider
agency's grievance process." Additionally, DDD represented that HRC
recommendations are not appealable pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:48-1.6(f), and that
appeal rights are limited to challenging an administrator's decision, not an HRC
recommendation.
On September 17, 2024, G.G. sent a letter to the DDD Assistant
Commissioner requesting that DDD consider her appeal pursuant to N.J.A.C.
A-0615-24 4 10:41A and 10:48. On September 19, 2024, the Assistant Commissioner
responded, issuing a final agency decision upholding DDD's refusal to open an
appeal. The decision reiterated that, according to DDD, the appropriate appeals
process was through the Federation's own grievance mechanism 3 as the dispute
was between G.G. and the Federation.
This appeal follows. G.G. raises two primary contentions for our
consideration: first, that DDD is required to allow an appeal pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 10:41A-4.6(b) because G.G. submitted a written statement of
disagreement and continues to disagree with the decision to remove the cameras
from her unit; and second, that DDD is required to initiate an appeal under
N.J.A.C. 10:48-1.6 because a DDD-licensed provider refuses to implement the
supports outlined in her ISPs.
II.
The scope of our review is limited. As a general matter, an agency
decision will be upheld unless "'there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record. '" Russo
3 We note that at the time this appeal was filed the Federation did not have its own internal grievance process. A-0615-24 5 v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011) (quoting In
re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007)). Our review is limited to determining:
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.
[Monmouth Cnty. Prosecutor's Off. v. Off. of Att'y Gen., Dep't of L. & Pub. Safety, 480 N.J. Super. 33, 40 (App. Div. 2024), cert.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-0615-24
G.G.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent-Respondent. ___________________________
Argued October 7, 2025 – Decided November 25, 2025
Before Judges Susswein and Chase.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities.
Jared B. Oberweis argued the cause for appellant (Hinkle Prior Fischer & Oberweis, attorneys; Jared B. Oberweis, on the briefs).
Laura N. Morson, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Laura N. Morson, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Petitioner G.G.1 appeals the September 19, 2024 final agency decision of
the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) denying her an opportunity
to administratively appeal a partner agency's removal of a two-way audio-video
communications system in her private apartment, notwithstanding that the
cameras were required pursuant to two Individual Service Plans (ISP) 2
authorized by DDD. After reviewing the record in light of the governing legal
principles, we reverse the final agency decision and remand for DDD to hear
petitioner's administrative appeal.
I.
We discern the following pertinent facts and procedural history from the
record. G.G. is a 40-year-old woman diagnosed with mild intellectual disability
and unspecified pervasive development disorder. She resides in an apartment
1 We use initials to maintain the confidentiality of these proceedings. R. 1:38(f). 2 The ISP is a required planning document developed by DDD to organize and approve the services a person receives. It is prepared by a support coordinator with input from the individual and their family and is regularly updated as the individual's needs change. The ISP directs and prior authorizes all DDD services and service providers. See NJ Division of Developmental Disabilities, Supports Program and Community Care Program Policies and Procedures Manuals: A Quick Guide for Families (Mar. 2020). The ISP form lists the rights and responsibilities of an individual receiving supports and services through DDD, including "a fair hearing if for any reason . . . waiver services are denied, reduced, suspended [,] or terminated." A-0615-24 2 within a supervised housing community offering integrative housing services
provided by the Jewish Family and Children's Service (JFCS), an agency of the
Jewish Federation of Southern New Jersey (the Federation). JFCS provides
services to residents pursuant to their ISPs approved by DDD. The DDD's
Human Rights Committee (HRC) is an advisory body whose recommendations
are intended to provide guidance to the agencies that partner with DDD.
G.G. was declared incapacitated by the Camden County Superior Court,
and her father and brothers were appointed as her co-guardians. She utilizes a
two-way audio-video communication system (the cameras) within her private
apartment to facilitate check-ins with her guardians. Pursuant to her December
6, 2023 and August 4, 2024 ISPs, G.G.'s "apartment safety/security system must
include [two]-way interactive video and audio with her guardians" for her daily
support. (Emphasis added). On or about April 19, 2024, for reasons not stated
in the record, the Federation decided that it would no longer permit G.G. to use
the cameras in her apartment.
On June 6, 2024, the HRC held a teleconference to review the matter and
offer a recommendation to the Federation. HRC recommended that cameras not
be permitted in G.G.'s apartment. On July 18, 2024, G.G. sent a statement of
disagreement with supporting documentation to the Chief Executive Officer of
A-0615-24 3 the Federation. In a July 29, 2024 email, the Federation's Director of Special
Needs stated that the HRC emphasizes a resident's right to privacy within their
dwelling unit, and "having cameras inside the residence creates an unreasonable
intrusion into [G.G.'s] expectation of privacy, and that of the other residents."
The Federation, pursuant to the HRC's guidance, removed the cameras from
G.G.'s apartment on August 5, 2024.
On August 22, 2024, G.G. submitted a Request for Appeal to the DDD
Administrative Practice Office contesting the Federation's removal of the
cameras and the HRC's recommendation. Eight days later, DDD responded that
the issues presented are not appealable under N.J.A.C. 10:41A-4.1(b) and
N.J.A.C. 10:48-1.1 because DDD was not involved in the dispute between the
Federation and G.G. The Division advised, "[d]isagreements between service
provider agencies and their clients should be resolved through the provider
agency's grievance process." Additionally, DDD represented that HRC
recommendations are not appealable pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:48-1.6(f), and that
appeal rights are limited to challenging an administrator's decision, not an HRC
recommendation.
On September 17, 2024, G.G. sent a letter to the DDD Assistant
Commissioner requesting that DDD consider her appeal pursuant to N.J.A.C.
A-0615-24 4 10:41A and 10:48. On September 19, 2024, the Assistant Commissioner
responded, issuing a final agency decision upholding DDD's refusal to open an
appeal. The decision reiterated that, according to DDD, the appropriate appeals
process was through the Federation's own grievance mechanism 3 as the dispute
was between G.G. and the Federation.
This appeal follows. G.G. raises two primary contentions for our
consideration: first, that DDD is required to allow an appeal pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 10:41A-4.6(b) because G.G. submitted a written statement of
disagreement and continues to disagree with the decision to remove the cameras
from her unit; and second, that DDD is required to initiate an appeal under
N.J.A.C. 10:48-1.6 because a DDD-licensed provider refuses to implement the
supports outlined in her ISPs.
II.
The scope of our review is limited. As a general matter, an agency
decision will be upheld unless "'there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record. '" Russo
3 We note that at the time this appeal was filed the Federation did not have its own internal grievance process. A-0615-24 5 v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011) (quoting In
re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007)). Our review is limited to determining:
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.
[Monmouth Cnty. Prosecutor's Off. v. Off. of Att'y Gen., Dep't of L. & Pub. Safety, 480 N.J. Super. 33, 40 (App. Div. 2024), cert. denied, 260 N.J. 449, 334 (2025) (quoting Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014)).]
"When an agency's decision meets those criteria, then a court owes
substantial deference to the agency's expertise and superior knowledge of a
particular field." In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 28 (citations omitted). "On the
other hand, [appellate courts] are not bound by an agency's interpretation of a
statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue." In re Hearn, 417 N.J. Super.
289, 298 (App. Div. 2010) (citing In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483, 924 (2007)).
"On such issues, our standard of review is plenary." Ibid.
We stress that "[the appellate court's] review is not 'perfunctory,' nor is
[the court's] 'function . . . merely [to] rubberstamp an agency's decision[.]'"
Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231, 239 (App. Div. 2019)
A-0615-24 6 (omission in original) (second and third alteration in original) (quoting Figueroa
v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 191 (App. Div. 2010)). Rather, we
are "constrained to engage in a 'careful and principled consideration of the
agency record and findings.'" Ibid. (quoting Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 330 N.J.
Super. 197, 204 (App. Div. 2000)).
The New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 10, Chapter 41A is intended
to "establish standards for the composition and operation of the Division of
Developmental Disabilities' Human Rights Committees (HRC[s]), as well as
those in agencies under contract with or regulated by the Division." N.J.A.C.
10:41A-1.1.
N.J.A.C. 10:41A-4.6, entitled "Dispute Resolution," provides:
(a) Where the individual, guardian or advocate disagrees with the decision of the [a]dministrator, the individual, guardian or advocate may submit a written statement of disagreement. This statement of disagreement shall be sent, prior to the next HRC meeting, to the [a]dministrator for reconsideration and resolution. The [a]dministrator shall notify the chairperson of the HRC, in writing, of any disagreements and resolutions. This statement shall be maintained in the client record.
(b) If the individual, or his or her guardian or advocate, continues to disagree with the decision of the [a]dministrator, the individual, or his or her guardian or advocate, may appeal the decision in accordance with N.J.A.C. 10:48–1.1.
A-0615-24 7 N.J.A.C. 10:48-1.6 describes the process of requesting an appeal to the
DDD's Administrative Practice Office. It provides, "[a]ppeals of services shall
be limited to those services indicated in the service plan or appropriate for
inclusion in a service plan that were requested and denied." N.J.A.C. 10:48-
1.6(d).
III.
We are satisfied that in the particular circumstances of this dispute, DDD
is required to allow an appeal pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:41A-4.6(b). G.G.
followed the prescribed procedure for initiating an administrative appeal by
submitting a written statement of disagreement to the CEO of the Federation.
She still disagrees with the Federation's decision, which she "may appeal" in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 10:48–1.1.
Additionally, N.J.A.C. 10:48-1.6 allows appeals with respect to services
included in the service plan when such services are denied. N.J.A.C. 10:48-
1.6(d). We interpret the administrative code to authorize an appeal when, as in
this case, the petitioner was denied services that were included in an ISP
approved by DDD. It bears emphasis that DDD's Community Care Program
Manual (CCP Manual) explicitly requires service providers to "[p]rovide
services and supports within the parameters indicated in the ISP." NJ Division
A-0615-24 8 of Developmental Disabilities, Community Care Program Policies & Procedures
Manual (Sept. 2025). Here, the cameras were mandated by G.G.'s December 6,
2023 and August 4, 2024 ISPs.
In the specific circumstances of this case, we are unpersuaded by DDD's
contention at oral argument that it has no oversight over the Federation's
decision—despite the fact that the Federation is a contracted license-provider
agency. That position is inconsistent with the CCP Manual. We are satisfied in
these distinctive circumstances that DDD exercises some oversight over the
actions taken by the service providers it contracts with, holding them responsible
for fulfilling their obligation to "provide services and supports within the
parameters indicated in the ISP." Ibid.
We add that while the HRC issues only advice and recommendations, not
binding decisions, it was established by regulation and operates under the
auspices of the DDD. See N.J.A.C. 10:41A-1.1. We are concerned that the
HRC advised a service provider to discontinue a safety and security service
expressly required by DDD-approved ISPs.4 In these circumstances, the HRC's
4 The HRC recommendation notes that the Federation "explained that the continuous support from the family hinders staff involvement and that [G.G.] may require a higher level of supervision than what is documented in her service plan." Had the Federation sought a revision of the ISP to address its concerns,
A-0615-24 9 recommendation, which was relied upon by the service provider, is a dispute
appropriately within the scope of DDD's review as part of its responsibility to
protect the safety and well-being of the persons for whom it has approved an
ISP.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the final agency decision and
remand for DDD to hear the administrative appeal. We offer no opinion on the
outcome of that appeal except to note with respect to the privacy concerns
expressed by the HRC that the two-way cameras in question operate solely
within the confines of G.G.'s own apartment. As shown by this appeal, G.G.'s
duly appointed co-guardians have consented to any intrusion upon her own
privacy rights that might arise from the presence of the cameras. 5 We offer no
opinion on whether the privacy rights of other persons who might enter G.G.'s
apartment might outweigh the need for two-way cameras to protect her safety
any such modification would entail DDD approval, and such approval would without question be an agency action subject to administrative appeal. Here, it appears that rather than seek a revision to the ISP, the Federation enlisted the support of DDD's HRC to justify noncompliance with the existing ISP. 5 Moreover, DDD HRC's recommendation explicitly found that G.G. "replied 'yes' that she likes having the cameras in her apartment and receiving supports from her family." A-0615-24 10 and security—a need DDD recognized by approving the ISPs. We leave any
such argument to be addressed by DDD in the administrative appeal.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
A-0615-24 11