New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency
133 A.3d 643
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Infant G.G. born April 2013; initially appeared healthy but developed symptoms of opioid withdrawal and required 22 days in NICU and morphine treatment.
- Mother K.M. had long-term oxycodone addiction, self-obtained and used Suboxone during pregnancy without physician supervision or disclosure to her prenatal providers.
- Hospital delayed recognizing/treating NAS for three days because K.M. did not disclose Suboxone use; Division of Child Protection filed OTSC and amended complaint alleging abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4).
- Fact-finding hearings admitted expert testimony that Suboxone is an accepted treatment in supervised programs but that undisclosed in utero exposure produced NAS in G.G.; mother’s clandestine use and nondisclosure were established.
- Trial court found K.M. abused/neglected G.G.; on appeal the Appellate Division affirmed based on K.M.’s grossly negligent failure to timely disclose her Suboxone use, which caused preventable infant suffering.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother’s conduct constitutes abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4) | Division: K.M.’s undisclosed opioid/Suboxone use and delay in disclosure impaired or endangered child’s health | K.M.: No actual harm beyond medically expected NAS from treatment; Y.N. protects mothers who engage in medically supervised treatment | Held: Yes. K.M.’s grossly negligent failure to timely disclose Suboxone caused preventable suffering — constitutes neglect under (c)(4)(a) |
| Whether NAS caused by prescribed or supervised treatment precludes an abuse/neglect finding | Division: Not applicable here because K.M. did not seek/receive medical supervision | K.M.: Relies on Y.N. principle that timely, bona fide treatment disclosed to providers precludes neglect finding | Held: Y.N. inapplicable; K.M. did not obtain prescribed, supervised treatment or disclose it, so exception does not protect her |
| Whether actual physical harm is required for neglect finding | Division: Harm includes impairment or imminent danger from failure to exercise minimum care | K.M.: Argues record lacks proof of harm beyond transient NAS | Held: Court acknowledges limited harm argument but finds the governing inquiry is preventable harm — three days of needless withdrawal satisfies impairment/neglect standard |
| Whether appellate court may affirm on different legal reasoning than trial court | Division: N/A | K.M.: N/A | Held: Appellate Division may affirm on grounds other than trial court’s reasoning (Adubato) — affirms based on mother’s untimely nondisclosure rather than pregnancy conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines "minimum degree of care" as gross or wanton negligence)
- Department of Children & Families v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 (2011) (quotes statutory standard for parental failure to exercise minimum care)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. Y.N., 220 N.J. 165 (2014) (holds timely, bona fide, disclosed medical treatment during pregnancy generally precludes abuse/neglect finding)
- State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167 (App. Div. 2011) (appellate principle that court may affirm judgment on different grounds than trial court)