DCPP VS. E.K. AND D.K., IN THE MATTER OF J.K. AND K.H. (FN-13-0163-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1486-19

Background

On Christmas night Emily (E.K.), separated from David (D.K.), was driven by David with their two children (ages ~5 and ~10) after Emily had been drinking and lost driving privileges earlier.
During the return drive Emily became irate, struck David, and twice exited the vehicle: once attempting to climb/jump from an overpass and once running across southbound Turnpike lanes to the median.
David pulled Emily back both times, told the children to stay in the car, and later drove to a police station where Emily was arrested and taken for psychiatric screening.
Children told a Division caseworker they were frightened, saw their mother try to jump and run into traffic, and that Emily had punched David in the car; the caseworker’s report was admitted and corroborated David’s testimony.
Trial court found David credible, excluded Emily’s recorded out-of-court statement as hearsay, and concluded Emily’s conduct created an imminent risk of physical harm by failing to exercise a minimum degree of care.
Appellate court affirmed, deferring to the Family Court’s credibility findings and applying the Title 9 standard that imminent danger can establish abuse/neglect without proof of actual harm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/competent evidence to prove events on Turnpike	Division relied on David’s credible testimony and caseworker’s corroborated interview notes from the children	Emily argued the evidence was insufficient, pointed to minor inconsistencies, alleged bias by David, and noted the caseworker did not immediately interview her	Affirmed: trial court credibility findings supported by adequate, substantial, competent evidence; appellate court defers to factfinder
Adjudication standard: whether Emily failed to exercise a minimum degree of care causing imminent danger	Division: Emily’s attempts to jump and running across lanes drew David from car, left children exposed to traffic and emotional danger—satisfies "minimum degree of care" and imminent risk under Title 9	Emily: contested that her conduct did not meet the statutory standard for neglect/abuse and that there was no proof of actual harm	Affirmed: conduct was grossly/wantonly negligent/reckless and posed imminent physical risk to children; Title 9 requires only imminent danger, not actual harm
Admissibility/use of out-of-court statements (children’s interviews; Emily’s recorded statement)	Division: children’s statements to caseworker admissible when corroborated by other evidence	Emily: sought to rely on her recorded statement; argued other hearsay problems	Trial court properly excluded inadmissible hearsay from Emily’s recorded statement; properly relied on children’s out-of-court statements corroborated by David’s testimony

Key Cases Cited

N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (deference to family court factfinding)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (standard for disturbing trial factfindings)
G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (defines "minimum degree of care" and standard of reckless/wanton conduct)
Dept. of Child. and Fam. v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (two-step analysis: culpability then imminent-harm risk)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. Y.A., 437 N.J. Super. 541 (use of caseworker testimony about child out-of-court statements when corroborated)
Dept. of Child. & Fam. v. G.R., 435 N.J. Super. 392 (contrast: factors relevant to leaving children unattended)