New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. M.C. in the Matter of M.C., M.C., Jr. and A.C., 435 N.J. Super. 405

Background

On Jan. 27, 2012 Matt (14) told school staff he was afraid to go home because M.C. hit him; school reported to the Division. Matt initially alleged punching, smacking, belt use, and a "corner incident" where M.C. made him hit himself and say degrading names. No contemporaneous medical evidence of injury was produced.
Division investigator interviewed the children and parents; Matt later recanted in an in‑camera interview during the fact‑finding hearing and earlier to his mother and therapist. Jack and Jill made out‑of‑court statements consistent with Matt’s initial report.
M.C. admitted to drinking problems and some physical discipline (describing just pushed'' or tapped'' Matt); he left the home temporarily and thereafter engaged in Division‑arranged family therapy and substance‑abuse treatment.
The family therapist reported substantial progress: M.C. acknowledged inappropriate parenting, maintained sobriety, improved communication with Matt, and by June–July 2012 recommended discharge as services were successful.
The trial court credited the Division’s witnesses, found the children abused/neglected under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21(c)(4)(b) based on corporal punishment, the corner incident, M.C.’s binge drinking and the parents’ weekend removals, and Matt’s initial fear.
The Appellate Division reversed: applying A.L., it held the Division failed to prove present imminent danger of impairment at the fact‑finding hearing given the intervening remediation and lack of proof of likely repetition or actual harm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence established abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21(c)(4)(b) where no actual harm was shown	Division: past corporal punishment, the corner incident, M.C.’s binge drinking and family removals showed substantial risk and imminent danger to children	M.C.: evidence insufficient — recantation, no injuries, therapeutic progress, and no proof risk was ongoing or likely to recur	Reversed: insufficient competent evidence of present imminent danger or impairment when hearing occurred; remediation after intervention is relevant and dispositive here
Admissibility/corroboration of children’s out‑of‑court statements under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.46(a)(4)	Division: overlapping out‑of‑court statements plus M.C.’s admissions suffice to corroborate	M.C.: overlapping child statements alone are inadequate; required independent corroboration	Court did not decide the general rule; concluded M.C.’s own admissions provided adequate corroboration in this case and reversal rests on insufficiency of evidence, not corroboration rule
Weight of child’s in‑camera recantation vs. earlier statements	Division: credited earlier statements and investigator testimony over in‑camera denials	M.C.: in‑camera denials and prior recantations undermine original allegations	Appellate court noted recantations and therapeutic reports undermined finding of current imminent danger; trial court’s credibility choice not enough to sustain abuse/neglect finding absent evidence of present risk
Relevance of remedial measures taken between report and hearing	Division: past conduct and parental weekend removals demonstrate risk despite remediation	M.C.: therapy, sobriety, supervised reunification show risk was abated and not imminent	Held: remedial changes and current circumstances must be considered; they undercut finding of imminent danger and require reversal when no proof of likely recurrence or actual harm exists

Key Cases Cited

New Jersey Dep’t of Children & Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (holding that absent actual harm, Division must prove present imminent danger of impairment)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (2011) (need to consider totality of circumstances and remedial efforts in abuse/neglect analysis)
New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.M., 136 N.J. 546 (1994) (neglect may be found when home conditions do not improve despite assistance)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.H.C., 415 N.J. Super. 551 (App. Div. 2010) (past parental conduct probative of imminent danger only to extent it shows current danger)
State v. Lucas, 30 N.J. 37 (1959) (corroboration/confession analysis referenced for assessing trustworthiness of statements)