DCPP VS. J.B. AND T.L.IN THE MATTER OF T.B. (FN-02-298-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-4795-14T1/A-4796-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Parents J.B. (Jim) and T.L. (Tina) admitted to prolonged, daily use of Roxicet/Roxicodone (opiates) and cocaine while they were the primary caregivers of their 11‑month‑old daughter; both entered a five‑day detox program at Bergen Regional Medical Center after a Division referral.
- Division investigator and Dr. Hayman Rambaran (Director, Addiction Treatment Unit) testified regarding the parents’ admissions, positive drug tests, and medical opinion that the reported levels of opiates and cocaine impair judgment, reflexes, and increase overdose risk, especially when combined.
- The child appeared well cared for on inspection and was up to date on medical visits and immunizations; parents had arranged temporary care with a relative before Division contact.
- Trial counsel for the Law Guardian joined the Division in seeking a neglect finding; on appeal the Law Guardian reversed position and urged reversal without explaining the change in the appellate brief.
- Family Part Judge Foti found the parents’ drug use while acting as caretakers constituted gross negligence/reckless disregard and placed the infant at substantial risk of harm, entering a final finding of neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21c(4)(b).
Issues
| Issue | Division's Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents’ admitted daily use of opiates and cocaine while primary caregivers constituted neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21c(4) | Daily use at the reported levels created substantial, foreseeable risk to an infant; expert testimony showed impairment and overdose risk — meets gross negligence/reckless disregard standard | Parent drug use alone is insufficient; Division presented no proof parents were under the influence while caring for the child and child was apparently well cared for | Affirmed: admissions + medical testimony established grossly negligent/reckless conduct placing child at substantial risk of harm |
| Whether A.L. and V.T. bar a neglect finding here | Division: those cases are distinguishable on facts (prenatal use in A.L.; supervised visitation/older child in V.T.) | Parents: relied on A.L. and V.T. to argue drug use alone cannot support neglect finding | Held: A.L. and V.T. are factually distinguishable; courts require specific proof of impairment or risk, which exists here |
| Admissibility of Division reports and doctor testimony | Division: documents and Dr. Rambaran’s testimony were properly admitted; doctor was identified in advance and gave non‑technical expert testimony | Parents: hearsay and failure to disclose doctor’s report precluded reliance on those materials | Held: No abuse of discretion; party admissions and medical records were properly relied upon; testimony admissible under circumstances |
| Effect of Law Guardian’s changed appellate position | Division: not dispositive; court may consider institutional role and potential invited error | Law Guardian: change permitted; it did not appeal and need not be barred by invited error doctrine | Court: noted concern about unexplained switch and urged full briefing in similar future circumstances but did not decide issue; disposition stands on record evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- G.S. v. Department of Human Services, 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines "minimum degree of care" and equates gross negligence/wanton or willful conduct with reckless disregard for child safety)
- New Jersey Department of Children & Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 7 (2013) (parental drug use during pregnancy does not automatically establish neglect; courts must not fill evidentiary gaps)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. V.T., 423 N.J. Super. 320 (App. Div. 2011) (parental drug use during supervised visitation with an older child did not constitute neglect where no substantial risk shown)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. B.O., 438 N.J. Super. 373 (App. Div. 2014) (parental illegal drug use when caring for an infant exposes the child to many dangers due to impaired judgment)