DCPP VS. J.J. IN THE MATTER OF JU.J., JEM.J. AND JER.J.(FN-03-0347-15, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4402-15T4

Background

On May 15, 2015, a crossing guard found two young brothers (ages six and seven) walking alone and crying along a busy parkway and brought them to school.
At school, the older brother reported that their mother, J.J., had beaten the six-year-old (Jeremy) at least ten times with a cell-phone charging cord; Jeremy had welts and contusions consistent with cord strikes and received medical attention.
Both boys told Division caseworkers that J.J. had struck them in the past and that she normally drove them to school but, after the incident, ordered them to walk alone to school.
J.J. admitted striking Jeremy multiple times because the boys were fighting, denied ordering them out of the house, expressed remorse, and was participating in court-ordered services.
The Family Part judge found the Division proved abuse/neglect by a preponderance of the evidence and concluded the cord strikes and sending the children to walk alone supported a finding under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b).
J.J. appealed the finding; the Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings and the record evidence of physical injury and supervisory failure.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether striking a six-year-old multiple times with a charging cord constituted "excessive corporal punishment" and abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b)	The Division: multiple strikes left welts and contusions; cord is a heavy-duty implement; physical injury and risk of harm satisfy statutory standard	J.J.: conduct was discipline, isolated, and not criminal abuse; she expressed remorse and denied some factual assertions (e.g., ordering them out)	Affirmed — strikes (at least 10) producing injuries constituted excessive corporal punishment and met the statutory definition of abuse/neglect
Whether ordering the boys to walk alone on a busy parkway constituted failure to provide minimum supervision	Division: sending young children alone on a busy road created substantial risk and impaired their safety	J.J.: denied ordering them out; claimed they left on their own after she left bathroom	Affirmed — judge credited children’s accounts; walking alone on busy parkway supported supervisory-failure aspect of neglect
Whether the Division met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence	Division relied on children’s consistent statements, medical records, and photos of injuries	J.J. disputed parts of the account and stressed remorse and services	Affirmed — substantial credible evidence supported the finding; appellate court defers to trial judge’s credibility determinations
Whether a single or infrequent act of corporal punishment could be deemed excessive	N/A — Division argued harm, not intent, controls; prior caselaw allows single incidents to be excessive	J.J. emphasized remorse and lack of intent to harm	Affirmed — courts focus on harm incurred; a single or limited incidents can be excessive when injury results

Key Cases Cited

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (framework for appellate review and deference to family court findings)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (deference to family court credibility findings)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (limits on appellate review of family court factfinding)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (distinguishes non-bruising discipline from excessive corporal punishment)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (intentional actions causing injury can constitute abuse despite lack of intent to harm)
Dep’t of Children & Families v. C.H., 416 N.J. Super. 414 (excessive corporal punishment where child sustained marks/bruises)
Dep’t of Children & Families v. K.A., 413 N.J. Super. 504 (focus on harm to child; examples of physical injury as abuse)