DCPP VS. B.R. AND D.B.Â IN THE MATTER OF D.B.Â Â (FN-06-171-14, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3439-14T4

Background

On June 10, 2014, gunshots were fired during a drug transaction at the Vineland home where mother B.R., father D.B., and child Dave lived; a bullet entered Dave’s bedroom but did not hit him.
Police arrested D.B.; B.R. was not charged but the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) was notified and conducted an emergency intervention.
Division caseworker interviewed D.B., who admitted selling drugs from the home and daily marijuana use; D.B. identified B.R. as Dave’s mother and supplied the caseworker with contact information for B.R.
B.R. told the caseworker she knew D.B. sold drugs at home, denied substance abuse, and admitted leaving Dave with D.B. while she attended evening classes four nights a week.
The Family Part found, after a paper submission of the Division’s investigation summary and no defense witnesses, that B.R. failed to exercise a minimum degree of care and placed Dave at imminent risk of harm; care and supervision continued with the Division while physical custody remained with B.R.
Litigation later closed when the Division determined conditions were remediated; B.R. appealed the finding of abuse/neglect and asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for a largely non‑adversarial fact-finding hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Division)	Defendant's Argument (B.R.)	Held
Whether facts supported a Title Nine finding (abuse/neglect for failing to exercise minimum care)	B.R. knew drugs were sold/stored in home and left child with D.B.; selling drugs created an imminent, substantial risk of harm	The Division did not prove B.R. knew of the specific risk that led to the shooting or acted recklessly; her post‑referral remediation should be credited	Court affirmed: knowledge of drug sales + leaving child in that environment met standard for imminent risk and gross‑negligence/minimum‑care failure
Whether a finding could be based on imminent risk without actual harm	Immediate intervention permissible; statute allows finding based on imminent danger and substantial risk	Argues no actual harm and no specific prediction of shooting	Court: statute and precedent permit action based on imminent/substantial risk; no actual harm required
Whether the fact-finding hearing may proceed "on the papers" without live testimony	Division relied on written investigation summary; no objection to exhibits	B.R. contends waiver of live hearing, counsel did not present witnesses or arguments, impairing defense	Court criticized paper‑only practice but found undisputed record evidence sufficient; result affirmed
Whether B.R. received ineffective assistance of counsel	N/A (State presented case)	Counsel failed to prepare, call witnesses, or challenge evidence; these defects prejudiced outcome	Court applied Strickland/Fritz test and B.R. proffered insufficient detail or witness certifications showing what evidence would have changed result; claim failed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of competent counsel and burden on defendant)
B.R. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 192 N.J. 301 (N.J. 2007) (requirements for appellate showing of ineffective assistance in guardianship/Title Nine cases)
G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (N.J. 1999) (minimum‑care/gross negligence standard and ordinary‑person risk analysis)
N.J. Dep’t of Children & Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2013) (imminent danger/substantial risk can support abuse/neglect finding absent actual harm)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (appellate deference to Family Part factfinding)
N.J. Div. of Child Protection & Permanency v. S.W. and R.W., 448 N.J. Super. 180 (App. Div. 2017) (criticizing contested fact‑findings decided solely on written submissions)