Just when I thought the overhyped liberal lawyers at the NJSC couldn't be any dumber, they take it to another level. Apparently according to the NJSC, a mom can smoke coke 2 days before birth, and if it shows no effect of harm on her child, she is not guilty of child neglect.
Do any of these overhyped lawyers EVER step into the real world? I agree that the definition of child abuse/neglect is stretched beyond belief to make gigantic government bigger, but this decision is just plain stupid.
From the link:
In a far-reaching decision that clarifies what child abuse means and how families are investigated, the state Supreme Court ruled today that parents who engage in risky behavior cannot be found neglectful if there is no evidence they harmed their child.
Legal advocates hailed the 5-0 decision as a breakthrough for low-income parents they represent, saying they say are too often perceived guilty before having a chance to clear their names. Once he or she is deemed guilty of non-criminal child abuse or neglect, a parent’s name is placed a child abuse registry for good.
"This is a long-awaited decision," said Mary McManus-Smith of Legal Services, which joined the case on behalf of the thousands of indigent parents they have represented in family court. "There are significant long-term consequences if you are on the registry. You can’t be a teacher and child care provider. If you wanted to adopt ... they have to check to see if you are on the registry."
The ruling should set a uniform understanding of "what abuse is and isn’t," she added.