Matthew Linchinsky was born to Ms. Gayle Linchinsky January 29, 1998. For the next three and half years, Matthew remained in the sole legal and residential custody of his mother, for his father, Walter Dowd, denied paternity of this child, abandoned this child and his mother, and had made inadequate support payments. Due to this inadequacy, Ms. Linchinsky was forced to seek the court’s intervention in asserting her rights in this matter. 

During this time, after the age of six months, Matthew had been in daycare while Ms. Linchinsky worked to support her son and herself. While in constant contact with child professionals, there is no history of reports of abuse or neglect concerning the child, or questions concerning Ms. Linchinsky’s ability as a mother. 

In October of 2001, Mr. Dowd had shown an interest in being a part of his son’s life, of which Ms. Linchinsky had agreed to. During the next three months however, there were problems concerning Mr. Dowd’s demeanor towards his son and Ms. Linchinsky. 

On January 24, 2001, Mr. Dowd had made false allegations towards Ms. Linchinsky that resulted in her detention at the Raritan Bay Mental Health Institute. During this time, DYFS was contacted. Shatta Mansaray, a worker for the Division of Youth and Family Services independently made the decision that custody of Matthew would be given to the father, Mr. Dowd, and would not be returned to Ms. Linchinsky until she received services. 

Ms. Linchinsky, with no other choice, voluntarily agreed to admission for care. However, after an investigation, DYFS found no substantiation of abuse or neglect towards Ms. Linchinsky.

Also, at this time, Mr. Dowd made a feeble attempt to gain permanent custody of his son by filing a restraining order against Ms. Linchinsky on behalf of Matthew and himself. This attempt failed as a result of a court hearing before the Honorable Judge Durman presiding in the Middlesex County Superior Court, Family Division, and Ms. Linchinsky retained sole custody of Matthew as is was admitted by the child’s father that he had abused Matthew. 

During this same time, a report was made to The Division of Youth and Family Services about abuse of the child by Mr. Dowd and possible neglect by Ms. Linchinsky. This report was investigated, with the finding that abuse or neglect had not been substantiated on either party, and the matter closed. 

On March 15, 2001, Ms. Linchinsky was giving her son a bath. While in the bath tub, Matthew was playing with his bath toys as all children do. However, Matthew gained a fixation with the water faucet. Despite several warnings from his mother, Matthew turned the hot water faucet on, and after becoming in contact with the water, Matthew proceeded to jump up and run to the other side of the tub. As Ms. Linchinsky attempted to catch Matthew, he slipped and fell. As a result of his fall, he suffered small laceration to his lip after it had abruptly contacted either the side of the tub or one of his toys. 

Ms. Linchinsky then immediately applied first aid to the lip. The bleeding had stopped, and then started again sometime later. Again Ms. Linchinsky repeated her actions and the same out come resulted. Ms. Linchinsky then took Matthew to JFK Medical Center for treatment. It was determined that Matthew had suffered a “Minor Laceration that required two stitches.”

While there, Ms. Linchinsky was questioned about possible ETOH on her breath. Ms. Linchinsky admitted to having one beer prior to taking Matthew to the hospital. Ms. Linchinsky was not tested, nor was social services called at this time, as to this matter. Ms. Linchinsky was not in a state of inebriation. 

The attending physician had called who he believed was Matthew’s pediatrician, but had spoken to an on call doctor at the pediatrician’s group. This physician suggested that social services be called. The hospital then called The Division of Youth and Family Services the next day and reported the incident. 

On March 16, 2001, DYFS responded to the report and came to Ms. Linchinsky’s home to investigate the report. However, Matthew was not with Ms. Linchinsky at the time as he was visiting his great-grandmother and Aunt. While there, the Division searched Ms. Linchinsky’s residence and then proceeded to the great-grandmother’s house to begin their investigation.

During this investigation, one of the case-workers took Matthew into a room, closed the door and began questioning him about the incident. This case-worker, after exiting from this room, told Ms. Linchinsky that her son said that she hit him. She then demanded that Ms. Linchinsky sign a 15 day consent order to have Matthew reside at the great-grandmothers house while they further investigate the matter or she (Ms. Linchinsky), would face being arrested for failing to comply. 

Ms. Linchinsky, out of fear, signed the consent agreement. During the next 15 days, the division failed to investigate this matter further. 

After this time, DYFS demanded that Ms. Linchinsky sign a 6 month consent order for the same reasons. Ms. Linchinsky, once again out of fear, signed the agreement. 

After seeking legal counsel, Ms. Linchinsky terminated her consent to this agreement in May of 2001. DYFS then filed an action before this court for legal custody of Matthew Linchinsky without notification to Ms. Linchinsky or her attorney at the time, Mr. Elliot Weisner. 

Due to the non- notification of this action, Ms. Linchinsky was denied her Due Process Rights in defending herself against the allegations made by DYFS against her. Thus, action went uncontested before the court, and DYFS obtained legal custody of Matthew Linchinsky. 

After this hearing, because of a problem with Ms. Linchinsky’s Grandmother’s medical condition, there was a need to have Matthew placed elsewhere. Several names of family and friends were given to DYFS, but they had not acted upon them. They had made the decision to place Matthew with a friend of Mr. Dowd’s. A friend that he was living with.

This information was given to DYFS and they had denied that Mr. Dowd was living there. Factual proof was given, but the Division had failed to investigate this matter or give credit to the factual information. 

For the purposes of simplicity, the remainder of information will be in outlined form. All information is factual, with written proof to substantiate these claims. 

DYFS had ordered a psychological evaluation on Ms. Linchinsky but had tainted the outcome of the evaluation by providing false information to the evaluator.

DYFS had treated Ms. Linchinsky with great disrespect during this matter, to the point that she was called “White Trash on welfare” (which she is not) in front of several witnesses.

DYFS had ordered a substance abuse evaluation on Ms. Linchinsky, which she agreed to and had passed with no recommendation for treatment. However, DYFS had continued to write in their reports that she has an alcohol problem. Furthermore, DYFS conveniently lost this evaluation.

After the child was placed in foster care with the father’s friend, Ms. Linchinsky had tried to contact Matthew’s school as to his development and was told that they were under order not to disclose any information to her concerning Matthew. 

Ms. Linchinsky and a third party went to the school as to talk to the director, but was ordered out of the school. Later that day, Ms. Linchinsky and the third party, who happened to be an officer of the court, went back to the school to investigate if even Matthew was registered for school. (They wanted to see if he was going to exit from school) Upon learning that the parties came back to the school, DYFS and Mr. Johnson, the husband of Mr. Dowd’s friend, filed a police report for stalking against this third party. In their court report, DYFS stated that the third party returned to school, “for the purposes of abducting Matthew and the Johnson’s daughter”

During the next several months, the foster parents, Mrs. & Mr. Johnson, had filed 9 different police reports against Ms. Linchinsky, her paramour Mr. Susko, and Ms. Linchinsky’s mother, based upon harassment. Not one of these reports were ever substantiated. Furthermore, there exists proof on Ms. Linchinsky that the acts alleged against her by the foster parents could simply not have happened. (Phone records, alibis of where about, etc.) 

Also, there was a report filed against Ms. Linchinsky’s attorney for speaking to Matthew during a visitation at the DYFS office, which there exist proof that this had never taken placed. DYFS had been asked to look into this and do something about these false allegations, but DYFS supported the foster parents against Ms. Linchinsky.

The foster parents had filed a complaint against Ms. Linchinsky for threats of bodily harm and criminal mischief. After a 6 hour Superior Court trial, it was determined that this action has never taken placed. There was contradictory testimony on the part of the Johnson’s and their witnesses, and the vehicle that they had claimed that Ms. Linchinsky drove on the night of the incident was in a repair shop for repairs, all of which was proven in court. DYFS had still taken no action against these foster parents for remediation of the problem.

DYFS was court ordered to set up an appointment for parenting skills classes for Ms. Linchinsky. They had taken no action to set up these appointments and had told her that there were none available while submitting in their reports that Ms. Linchinsky was being uncooperative and incompliant. The Division had sent her a letter stating that there were no available appointments for her. They had however, was able to set up appointments for the father. After 7 months had passed, Ms. Linchinsky, by her own accord through persons that she had gain contact with, was able to obtain appointments for parenting skills classes at Catholic Charities, the contract agency by DYFS. Ms. Linchinsky was given a letter by the director that there have been available appointments through out this entire time.

While in the care of the foster home, Matthew has made several trips to hospital emergency rooms for sustained injuries. These injuries were suspected abuse, but the Division has failed to investigate. Furthermore, the Division was court ordered to release the hospital reports to counsel, but has failed to do so.

While in the care of the foster parents, and throughout this time, false allegations and testimonies about Ms. Linchinsky have been made to the Division and the court. Each and every time Ms. Linchinsky has tried to defend herself against these allegations, even in the spite of factual proof, the Division has sided against her and has treated her in an unprofessional manner.

It was the duty of the Division to hold 1 hour visitations between Ms. Linchinsky and her son, however, the Division has sporadically done so. They have interfered with her visitation on several occasions as well as the Foster parents, and they offered no means of consolation for their actions. In fact, even though they had caused these interferences, they have reported that it was Ms. Linchinsky’s fault.

In January of 2002, Matthew’s father had kidnapped his son from the foster home. After the authorities contacted him, he had returned. It was reported that this was a misunderstanding even though he was under a court order not to have contact with the child alone. The Division covered up this matter, and reported it as a mistake.

In June of 2002, the division made a determination to place the child with the father in spite of facts that he has a history of mental illness, is bi-polar without treatment or medication, had a psychological evaluation performed that stated that he is incapable to care for a child, he cannot handle responsibility, and is prone to violent outbreaks.

By order of the court, it was determined that the child's father obtain stable housing in order for him to keep temporary custody. This has not been the case. In fact Mr. Dowd has not kept stable housing, has never owned his own place of residence. He has moved in with friends and have moved from friend to friend. Currently, he is living with a friend in her parents house. The parents are both terminally ill, one in a hospital bed. The house has two bedrooms and there are 6 people living in the home. In one room, two adults sleep together in the lower of a bunk bed, while Matthew and another child sleep together in the top. The Division has removed children from these types of situations in the past, but in this case, defend their position stating that this is not an endangerment to the welfare of a child. There have been reports submitted to the court as to the deplorable living conditions of this home as well as concerns on the safety and welfare of the children living in this home.

The child’s father has not been concurrently employed, nor has shown to be able to properly support his son.

Proof has been shown to the division that the child’s father has proven himself to be a pervert who entertains different women and has a vigorous internet life. However, they have suppressed this information and failed to act accordingly.

Ms. Linchinsky owns her own home, is married with means to support her son, has a large support structure, and is capable of care. However, the Division has not supported the idea of reunification as it should by their policy and procedures.

Ms. Linchinsky was awarded at home visitation, unsupervised, This included one day a week and over night on weekends. The child’s father has interfered with these visitations several times and the Division has failed to take appropriate action against him.

The Childs father made a false allegation of abuse against Ms. Linchinsky during this time. As a result her visitation was terminated. The Division failed to investigate this allegation. The Division was shown factual evidence with credible witnesses, including the child’s school teacher, that would negate this allegation, however, the Division once again has disregarded these facts and substantiated abuse against Ms. Linchinsky without probable cause. On court reports surrounding this incident, the Division has in so far as to lie about the incident and the proof that was shown.

Matthew shows up to every visit with new injuries sustained while living in the present home. There injuries are not normal everyday child scrapes and bruises, they are much more serious. This child shows up to visitations in over sized clothing and shoes that hurt his feet. Matthew has also been showing up to visitations unclean and all filthy when he leaves school. I want to get our son out of this horrible living conditions and away from all the abuse he is being given by the biological father and his girlfriend.