DCPP VS. A.D., S.R. AND J.M. IN THE MATTER OF A.D.-R. AND N.R.(FN-03-200-15, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-0642-15T3
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Mar 15, 2017Background
- Mother A.D. cared for premature twins at paternal grandmother's home; one twin was found dead on a couch after an overnight period when A.D. had been drinking.
- Father found A.D. asleep with an infant face-down on her chest; CPR was unsuccessful and the infant was declared dead.
- Police noted alcohol odor on A.D.; A.D. admitted prior heavy drinking, binge episodes, and taking some of the father’s Klonopin; no blood-alcohol result was entered at trial.
- Medical examiner (Dr. Hood) ruled cause of death a sudden unexplained death associated with co-sleeping; co-sleeping deaths are significantly more common and can be linked to suffocation/overlying even when autopsy is non-diagnostic.
- Trial judge credited Division witnesses, found A.D. grossly negligent for co-sleeping while intoxicated and concluded her conduct rose to neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(1); the judge declined to find the father culpable.
- Appellate division affirmed, holding the judge’s factual findings were supported by credible evidence and that the statutory standard for neglect was met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.D.'s conduct constituted neglect/abuse causing the infant’s death | Division: A.D. knowingly consumed alcohol, co-slept with an infant while impaired, and that non-accidental conduct caused the death (gross negligence) | A.D.: Division failed to prove causation or gross negligence; no blood-alcohol level and A.L. requires proof of actual harm or imminent substantial risk | Held: Affirmed. Evidence (intoxication, co-sleeping, ME opinion) supports finding of neglect/gross negligence causing death |
| Whether lack of direct toxicological proof (BAC) defeats neglect finding | Division: circumstantial evidence of heavy drinking, blackout history, missing meds, and observed impairment are sufficient | A.D.: Without BAC, causation and impairment are speculative under A.L. | Held: Circumstantial proof sufficed; BAC not required when record shows intoxication and risk leading to death |
| Proper legal standard and review of trial judge’s credibility findings | Division: trial court’s credibility and factual findings entitled to deference | A.D.: judge misapplied statutory standard from A.L. | Held: Deferential standard applies to factual findings; legal conclusions reviewed plenarily but judge applied correct standards—decision affirmed |
| Liability of infants’ father | Division: possibly culpable | Trial/Division: father’s testimony and actions were not shown to meet neglect standard | Held: Evidence insufficient to find father engaged in abuse or neglect |
Key Cases Cited
- G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (discusses when conduct is "other than accidental" and parental foreseeability)
- A.L. v. Division of Child Protection & Permanency, 213 N.J. 1 (requires proof of actual harm or imminent substantial risk above mere negligence)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. B.O., 438 N.J. Super. 373 (addresses risks of caregiver impairment and infants’ susceptibility)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. V.T., 423 N.J. Super. 320 (one act or sum of acts may constitute abuse/neglect; analyze facts synergistically)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (clarifies scope of appellate review when judge’s factual evaluation is challenged)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (explains deference to trial court’s findings due to credibility advantage)