DCPP VS. J.R.B. IN THE MATTER OF J.R.B., JR. AND M.B. (FN-09-0351-13, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-1018-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- Parents J.R.B. (Jerry) and M.L. (Martha) lived with two children (age 3 and five weeks) and roommates; on April 1, 2013 Jerry and Martha were arrested in NYC on federal drug-distribution charges while the children remained in Jersey City with the roommates.
- Jersey City police, prompted by the FBI, performed a welfare check, found a cluttered apartment with odor and two pit bulls, and took the children to the hospital where they were found physically healthy.
- The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) removed the children after parents could not be contacted; proceeding followed in Family Part.
- At a fact-finding hearing the Division introduced an indictment and docket sheet and called caseworkers and an officer; Jerry did not testify at the hearing but had earlier admitted to prior occasional drug sales and weekly meth use (denying use in presence of children or drugs in the home).
- The Family Part found both parents abused/neglected the children based on Jerry’s admissions and the criminal charges; later the children were returned to parents and litigation ended, but Jerry appealed the abuse/neglect finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Jerry sold/conspired to sell drugs on April 1, 2013 | Indictment, docket sheet, and Jerry’s admissions of prior sales support inference he engaged in distribution on that date | Indictments are not proof; prior misconduct cannot be used to prove the charged act; no direct proof he sold drugs on April 1 | Reversed — indictment and prior admissions did not prove he sold drugs on April 1 |
| Whether Jerry’s alleged drug distribution placed the children at substantial risk of harm | Arrest/incarceration risk makes parent unavailable, creating a risk to children | Children were with adult roommates; no evidence of abandonment, unsafe caregivers, drugs in the home, or other nexus showing substantial risk | Reversed — no competent evidence of substantial risk of harm from alleged distribution/incarceration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125 (indictment only shows charge filed; does not prove commission of crime)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (preponderance standard and requirement of competent evidence in Title 9 proceedings)
- G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (risk-based focus of child-protection statute; evaluate parental care in context of risk)
- Dep’t of Children and Families v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 ("minimum degree of care" defined; continuum between gross and ordinary negligence)
- N.J. Dep’t of Children & Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (finding abuse/neglect may rest on imminent danger/substantial risk absent actual harm)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.H.C., 415 N.J. Super. 551 (limitations on use of prior bad acts; Rule 404(b) principles in Title 9 context)