DCPP VS. H.R.Â IN THE MATTER OF M.H.Â (FN-02-0318-14, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-2143-15T4

Background

On May 13, 2014, H.R. drove with her two-year-old son M.H. to a high-crime area of Paterson, allowed an unidentified man into her car, and shortly thereafter handed police five glassine folds of heroin after being stopped during surveillance.
Officers observed M.H. in a dirty car seat wearing pajamas with soaked clothing from a soiled diaper, no shoes, and no diaper bag or supplies; H.R. said she had no one to care for the child.
The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) removed M.H. on an emergency basis and filed a neglect/abuse complaint alleging H.R. exposed the child to substantial risk by engaging in an illegal drug purchase with the child in the vehicle.
At the fact-finding hearing, witnesses (police officers, the Division caseworker, and a substance-abuse evaluator) testified about H.R.’s drug purchase, the child’s condition, and H.R.’s history of substance abuse and prior CDS-related incidents.
The Family Part found H.R. grossly negligent and that her conduct placed M.H. at substantial risk of harm, constituting abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4); custody later was awarded to the father, G.H.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Division proved H.R. abused or neglected M.H. by failing to exercise a minimum degree of care	Division: H.R. exposed the child to substantial risk by purchasing heroin in a high-crime area with the child in the car, has a history of substance abuse, and neglected basic needs	H.R.: Possession alone and lack of proof she was under the influence do not show substantial risk or actual harm to M.H.	Affirmed — sufficient credible evidence showed gross negligence and substantial risk of harm
Whether the child was actually harmed or only exposed to risk	Division: courts need not wait for actual irreparable impairment; creating substantial risk suffices	H.R.: Argues absence of actual harm undermines neglect finding	Held — creation of substantial risk is sufficient; actual severe harm not required
Admissibility of Division reports, police reports, evaluator report, and urine screen	Division: reports corroborated by live testimony and appropriately admitted; judge limited consideration of hearsay	H.R.: Reports and urine screen were inadmissible hearsay or unauthenticated	Held — trial testimony provided the essential facts; judge excluded any inadmissible hearsay and any nonessential reports did not affect outcome
Sufficiency of remedies and procedures (placement, services, reunification efforts)	Division: emergency removal and offered services were proper given imminent danger	H.R.: Challenges aspects of process (argued errors in evidence admission)	Held — procedures and remedial efforts upheld; remaining procedural arguments were without sufficient merit

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes Miranda warning requirements for custodial interrogation)
In the Matter of the Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (N.J. 1999) (court need not wait for actual irreparable impairment; substantial risk suffices)
G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (N.J. 1999) (defines "minimum degree of care" as gross or wanton negligence)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.D., 207 N.J. 88 (N.J. 2011) (standard of review on appeal in abuse/neglect findings)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (N.J. 2007) (upholding factual findings supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence)
In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 1993) (discussing appellate deference to trial court fact-findings)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. S.I., 437 N.J. Super. 142 (App. Div. 2014) (reckless disregard standard for minimum degree of care)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. N.S., 412 N.J. Super. 593 (App. Div. 2010) (case-by-case analysis of minimum degree of care in light of attendant dangers)