New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. A.B.
175 A.3d 942
| N.J. | 2017Background
- A.B.'s 16‑year‑old daughter A.F. and A.F.’s infant lived in an apartment owned by A.B.’s sister, J.F.; A.F. and A.B. had a turbulent relationship and A.F. ran away in Sept. 2012.
- The Division received a referral alleging A.F. was run away, using substances, and inadequately parenting an infant; a caseworker found A.F. staying with a friend in a residence lacking electricity.
- A.B. refused to allow A.F. and the infant back into the home, cancelled A.F.’s cellphone service, and declined emergency removal or Division services; the Division removed the children and filed a Title 9 complaint.
- At the fact‑finding hearing the trial judge excluded embedded hearsay statements attributed to J.F. (who did not testify); the Division’s caseworker was the sole witness.
- The trial court and a divided Appellate Division majority found A.B. neglected (N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21(c)(4)) and willfully abandoned A.F. (c(5)); the Appellate Division majority upheld suppression of the hearsay.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the neglect finding and hearsay exclusion, but reversed the abandonment finding for lack of proof that A.B. evinced a settled purpose to forego parental duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Division / Law Guardian) | Defendant's Argument (A.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hearsay statements attributed to J.F. | Statements were unreliable and should be excluded; judge acted within discretion | Exclusion was erroneous and violated due process; J.F.‑attributed statements were material and should be considered | Exclusion affirmed: judge did not abuse discretion and A.B. invited the exclusion by objecting below (invited error) |
| Neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21(c)(4)(a) (failure to provide adequate shelter; imminent danger) | Division: barring a 16‑year‑old mother with an infant from home without alternatives creates obvious risks and meets "imminent danger" and minimum care breach | A.B.: no actual impairment or imminent danger shown; Division needed to prove financial ability or offer of resources | Affirmed: preponderance supports neglect; A.B.’s refusal to allow return, termination of cellphone, and failure to arrange alternatives created imminent danger and breached minimum care |
| Willful abandonment under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21(c)(5) | Division: refusal to admit A.F. and failure to arrange care showed willful act amounting to abandonment | A.B.: no settled purpose to forsake parental duties; intermittent acceptance of A.F. back shows no intent to abandon | Reversed: record lacks specific findings that A.B. evinced a settled purpose to forgo parental responsibilities; abandonment not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Division of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.Y., 352 N.J. Super. 245 (App. Div. 2002) (trial judges must maintain formality in Title 9 proceedings; hearsay control)
- Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (Title 9 focuses on child protection; courts must consider imminent danger and surrounding circumstances)
- G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines minimum degree of care: awareness of danger and failure to supervise or reckless creation of risk)
- Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (actual impairment not required where imminent danger or substantial risk exists)
- Lavigne v. Family & Children’s Society, 11 N.J. 473 (1953) (abandonment requires conduct showing a settled purpose to forego parental duties)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate deference to family court factfinding)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (parental liberty interest in childrearing)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)