Consequences for Parents or Guardians Involving Their Child in Child Pornography
Allowing Your Child to Participate in the Production of Child Pornography can Lead to Criminal Prosecution and an Investigation by Child Protective Services in New Jersey. As technology has become more advanced and widely used, cases involving child pornography, or the possession or distribution of sexually explicit material involving minors under 18, have skyrocketed. The […]
read full articleIdentifying the Shadow of Imminent Harm in a DCF Case
Defining Imminent Danger or Harm to Children Involved in Division of Child Protection and Permanency Cases in New Jersey If you are a parent, one of your worst fears may be any form of interaction with the Division of Child Protection and Permanency, formerly known as the Division of Youth and Family Services. Especially if […]
read full articleEndangering the Welfare of a Child during Coronavirus in NJ
Accused of Child Endangerment in COVID-19 in New Jersey? We can Help During the current health pandemic, the residents of our state are required to remain in doors and work remotely. Unfortunately, living in constant close quarters with others can be a stressful environment, especially, with little children around. Additionally, many people have been terminated […]
read full articleCriminal Charges vs. DCPP Complaints for Endangering the Welfare of a Child in NJ
What’s Difference Between a Criminal Charge and a DCP&P Case for Endangering the Welfare of a Child? In New Jersey, being criminally charged for endangering the welfare of a child versus being accused by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCP&P) for child abuse or neglect is significantly different. New Jersey Laws on Endangering […]
read full articleNew Jersey Supreme Court Makes Important Decision on Endangering the Welfare of a Child Charges
The New Jersey Supreme Court very recently ruled that in order to obtain a conviction for endangering the welfare of a child, prosecutors need not prove that the child sustained actual harm, but only that there was a substantial likelihood that harm could result from the parent’s or guardian’s actions. In a 4-3 ruling, the […]
read full article