New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. C.W. in the Matter of I.N.W.
435 N.J. Super. 130
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- This Title Nine action by the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) sought to prove I.N.W. was abused or neglected by C.W. and K.R., leading to custody and disposition orders.
- The trial court found I.N.W. to be abused/neglected and awarded custody to her adult sibling, with the younger sibling placed with a paternal relative, terminating the litigation.
- At trial, six documentary exhibits were admitted; neither C.W. nor K.R. testified; the judge interviewed I.N.W. in chambers after an in-camera session.
- I.N.W. provided a detailed in-camera interview about the alleged assault by C.W. and K.R.; the judge allowed the interview to be broadcast in the courtroom for participants to hear.
- C.W. appealed, arguing the in-camera interview violated N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32.4 and due process; the Division and Law Guardian argued harmless error or compliance with Rule 5:12-4(b).
- The Appellate Division held the statute’s procedures were not followed but found sufficient evidence, excluding the in-camera statements, to support the trial court’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the judge follow N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32.4 before in-camera testimony? | Division argues Rule 5:12-4(b) suffices. | C.W. contends statute required explicit findings and procedures for in-camera testimony. | Statutory prerequisites not satisfied. |
| Did the in-camera interview violate due process or confrontation rights? | No prejudice because evidence was corroborated and defense could confront evidence. | In-camera procedure impinged on confrontation and due process. | Not prejudicial; due process largely preserved via opportunity to confront other evidence. |
| Was the evidence, excluding the in-camera statements, sufficient to support abuse/neglect findings? | Total evidence, including the interview, supported findings. | Without the interview, the findings may lack sufficient proof. | Yes; ample corroborated evidence supported findings. |
| Should the difference between Rule 5:12-4(b) and the statute control the result? | Rule 5:12-4(b) is compatible with the discretionary use of in-camera testimony. | Additional statutory protections required override the rule's discretion. | Statute controls; however, harmless error analysis applied and favored upholding the ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.B. v. Y.Z., 184 N.J. 599 (2005) (due process right to confrontation in civil matters)
- J.B., 120 N.J. 112 (1990) (State interest in eliciting child testimony in abuse cases)
- S.S., 185 N.J. Super. 3 (App. Div. 1982) (use of protective orders and private testimony procedures)
- L.A., 357 N.J. Super. 155 (App. Div. 2003) (trial judges' discretion to conduct private examination of a child)
- C.M., 181 N.J. Super. 190 (App. Div. 1981) (evaluate whole picture; cannot rely on isolated parts)
- Morrone v. Morrone, 44 N.J. Super. 305 (App. Div. 1957) (competency and oath considerations for child-witness testimony)
- State v. G.C., 188 N.J. 118 (2006) (necessity to ensure child witness understands truth-telling obligation)