New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. R.W. in the Matter of M.W. and Z.W.
105 A.3d 1123
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- N.J. Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) removed an infant from mother R.W. after R.W., a parolee residing in a Capable Adolescent Mothers Program (CAM), admitted she smoked marijuana on March 28, 2011 while the baby was with her.
- The Division filed a verified complaint alleging abuse and neglect based primarily on a Screening Summary prepared by a Division worker.
- At the fact-finding hearing R.W. did not appear; the Division presented no live witnesses and admitted two documents (a Court Report and the Screening Summary).
- The Screening Summary included (1) R.W.’s alleged admission of marijuana use, and (2) unproven allegations of poor parenting (yelling, leaving the infant alone). The Division’s attorney conceded it could only prove the substance use allegation.
- The trial judge found abuse and neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c) based on R.W.’s single admission of marijuana use while the child was present; R.W. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Screening Summary was admissible as a business record | Screening Summary is a Division record admissible under Rule 5:12-4(d) and N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6) | Screening Summary lacks foundation for out-of-court statements by CAM staff and thus untrustworthy hearsay | Portions recounting a CAM worker’s account were not properly supported; admission should have been challenged but defense counsel acquiesced; court should have assessed trustworthiness before admitting |
| Whether a single admission of marijuana use while child was present establishes "abuse" or "neglect" (imminent danger/substantial risk) | Use of illegal substances while caring for infant demonstrates incapacity and creates imminent danger/substantial risk of harm | Single, unexplained admission is insufficient; no evidence of intoxication level, duration, impairment, supervision status, or actual harm | Reversed — single admission without particularized evidence did not show imminent danger or substantial risk of harm |
| Whether a parent’s drug use that risks incarceration constitutes abuse/neglect because child may become unavailable | Parole violation and risk of incarceration supports finding because parent’s unavailability endangers child | Criminality or parole violation alone cannot transform every offense into abuse/neglect | Rejected — criminal violation or parole status alone does not automatically constitute abuse or neglect |
| Whether judges can "fill in" missing factual proof when records lack detail | Division urged reliance on records and judge’s factual inferences | Courts cannot fill evidentiary gaps or judicially notice harm; must require particularized proof | Court admonished trial judges not to fill missing information; must base findings on competent, particularized evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (requires evidence of imminent danger or substantial risk where no actual harm shown; warns against judges "filling in" missing information)
- New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. V.T., 423 N.J. Super. 320 (App. Div. 2011) (single drug ingestion without expert interpretation or evidence of impairment insufficient to prove risk of harm)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.G., 427 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 2012) (discusses admissibility of Division records and foundational requirements under business-records exception)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (articulates de novo review standard for legal conclusions unsupported by competent evidence)