DCPP VS. J.C., L.C. AND J.R.IN THE MATTER OF E.C., JU.C., A.R. AND J.R.(FN-09-0360-14, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-1168-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- J.C.'s four younger children were removed in November 2013 after disclosure that two older half-brothers had sexually assaulted the daughter (A.R.).
- E.C., nearly 16, was on probation from a Connecticut delinquency adjudication for sexual conduct with siblings; L.C., Jr., was confined in Massachusetts for sexual assault of A.R.
- Division caseworker Simone Coombs interviewed family members; children reported that E.C. sometimes supervised them when J.C. worked and that E.C. had unsupervised contact with A.R.
- A.R. disclosed repeated assaults by L.C. and one-time oral assaults by E.C. and Ju.C.; E.C. and J.C. made admissions corroborating the children's statements.
- The Family Part judge admitted statements against interest and prior statements by the child, found neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b) (failure to provide minimum degree of care), and entered a fact-finding order.
- On appeal, J.C. challenged sufficiency of evidence, the Division’s failure to produce E.C.’s probation records, adequacy of supervision (relying on uncle checks), and the absence of imminent danger; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported finding of neglect (failure to provide minimum care) | Division: children's statements plus admissions by E.C. and J.C. established that J.C. knowingly allowed E.C. to supervise contrary to probation, creating substantial risk | J.C.: record lacks substantial credible evidence; children’s statements insufficient without probation record; uncle provided supervision | Affirmed: preponderance met; corroborated statements and admissions supported neglect finding |
| Whether Division's failure to submit E.C.'s probation records defeated proof of restrictive supervision conditions | Division: admissions and defendant's acknowledgment of probation terms sufficed | J.C.: absence of formal probation record left uncertainty about supervision requirements and whether conditions continued after move | Rejected: judge properly relied on J.C.'s and E.C.'s statements against interest rather than documentary probation file |
| Whether J.C.'s reliance on uncle checks and presence of other children defeated claim of inadequate supervision | Division: J.C. was aware of risks and nonetheless directed E.C. to supervise, creating grossly negligent risk | J.C.: uncle checked in, other children were present, and incidents were historical with services provided — so she exercised minimum care | Rejected: factual findings showed supervision was inadequate given known risks and probation condition |
| Admissibility of statements (children and admissions) | Division: children's prior statements admissible under statutory exception; statements by J.C. and E.C. admissible as statements against interest | J.C.: (implicit) challenge to reliance on hearsay without documentary corroboration | Affirmed: judge properly admitted children's prior statements and statements against interest as corroborative evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- G.S. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines "minimum degree of care" and parental awareness standard for neglect)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Perm. v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (clarifies standard for gross or wanton negligence constituting failure to exercise minimum care)
- Silviera-Francisco v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Elizabeth, 224 N.J. 126 (2016) (procedural rule limiting review to matters before the trial judge)