In a case that could change the way New Jersey handles allegations of child abuse and neglect, Fox Rothschild Partner Jacob S. Perskie will argue before the state Supreme Court that a structural flaw in the system causes some people to suffer lasting damage to their reputations without providing them a chance to clear their names.

In S.C. v. NJ Department of Children and Families, an anonymous person claims that despite a finding that the child abuse accusations they faced were “not established,” their name was nonetheless added to a widely disseminated list, making it impossible to seek certain jobs.

Perskie filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. He argues that S.C.’s story illustrates the potential for unfairness in the investigative process at the Division of Child Protection and Permanency, which shares its conclusions with law enforcement, doctors and certain employers, potentially impacting the accused person’s employability.

Such investigations, Perskie notes, lead to one of four possible findings: “substantiated,” “established,” “not established” or “unfounded.” But hearings are provided to the accused only in cases where the allegations were “substantiated” or “established.”

Perskie argues even in cases where the allegations are deemed “not established,” serious consequences can result due to a “parallel determination” by the Division that there was evidence to indicate that a child was harmed or placed at risk.

“The term ‘not established’ is regulatory double-speak,” Perskie wrote in his brief.

To guarantee due process to all those accused, Perskie argues that the court should hold that in cases where the Division finds that child abuse allegations are “not established,” the accused is entitled to an administrative hearing.

“This decision is of great significance to the individuals who have to live with the tarnish of serious allegations that they have not had the opportunity to contest,” said Perskie. “When the Division has the authority to disclose the results of its investigations to government agencies, private entities, individuals or employers in a background check, it is imperative that the Division allow the accused their right to due process and the opportunity to clear their record.”

Perskie will argue the case as amicus before the New Jersey Supreme Court later this year.