DCPP VS. Y.O. AND J.T., SR.IN THE MATTER OF J.T., JR.(FN-09-227-15, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3372-15T4

Background

On October 17, police found Y.O. (Yolonda) sitting in the driver’s seat of an idling, double‑parked car with her nine‑month‑old son in a rear infant car seat; two other adults fled the scene.
Officers observed alcohol (a 24‑oz Coors bottle) and an unlit blunt in the vehicle and testified Yolonda appeared inebriated (bloodshot/watery eyes, slow/slurred speech).
A consent search revealed a loaded handgun under the front passenger seat; Yolonda was arrested for weapons and drug offenses and issued motor‑vehicle summonses.
Three days after arrest, Yolonda told a Division caseworker she would test positive for marijuana but denied smoking that day.
The Division filed a Title Nine (abuse/neglect) action; the trial court found Yolonda abused or neglected her child by operating a vehicle under the influence with the infant as a passenger.
The court later returned custody to Yolonda; she appealed the fact‑finding, arguing insufficient evidence to support abuse/neglect.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported a finding of abuse/neglect under Title Nine for driving under the influence with an infant passenger	Division: officers’ observations, presence of alcohol and blunt, and Yolonda’s admission she would test positive for marijuana established by a preponderance that the child was at imminent risk	Yolonda: no chemical tests or direct testimony she was under the influence; officers didn’t testify she smelled of alcohol/marijuana; contraband didn’t prove risk	Court: Affirmed — credibility of officers and admission supported finding of driving under the influence and imminent risk of harm under preponderance standard
Whether absence of drug/alcohol testing defeats the Division’s case	Division: physical indicia and admission suffice under civil/preponderance standard	Yolonda: without objective testing, evidence is insufficient to prove impairment	Court: Rejected Yolonda’s argument — testing not required; court credited subjective observations and admission
Whether presence of alcohol/marijuana/weapon in car established a substantial risk of harm to the child	Division: combination of impairment and contraband created a substantial, imminent risk	Yolonda: contraband alone did not place child at risk; no evidence child was harmed	Court: Agreed risk was established by conduct and context; no actual harm required if imminent danger shown
Standard of review on appeal of family‑court fact findings	Division: trial court’s credibility determinations entitled to deference	Yolonda: trial court erred factually despite record gaps	Court: Applied deference to trial court’s factfinding; will overturn only if clearly mistaken

Key Cases Cited

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. S.I., 437 N.J. Super. 142 (App. Div. 2014) (Division must show imminent danger or impairment by preponderance)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (when no actual harm, focus on threat of imminent harm/substantial risk)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (abuse/neglect may be based on imminent danger/substantial risk)
G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (definition of "minimum degree of care" and parental negligence standard)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008) (deference to family court credibility findings)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (value of trial court’s firsthand credibility assessments)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (appellate intervention limited to cases where trial court is clearly mistaken)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 (2011) (abuse/neglect cases are fact‑sensitive)