New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. S.N.W.
428 N.J. Super. 247
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- Defendant S.N.W. appeals a finding that her two young children were abused or neglected due to her appearing intoxicated while caring for them on October 13, 2010.
- The trial judge based the finding on live testimony from a police officer and a caseworker, noting the parents were intoxicated and unable to supervise.
- The judge also found the home appropriate and the children well cared for, creating a tension between intoxication findings and lack of harm.
- The initial decision did not include findings on defendant’s degree of culpability or whether she failed to provide a minimum degree of care under the statute.
- On appeal, defendant sought to supplement the record with medical records showing Xanax prescriptions; the court remanded for a B.R. ineffectiveness proceeding.
- The remand revealed the judge disregarded the relevance of the amount of Xanax ingested, and the appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings to develop proper findings on culpability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Division proved abuse/neglect by gross negligence or recklessness. | Division contends defendant’s intoxication created substantial risk or harm. | Defendant argues there was only negligence, not gross negligence or recklessness. | Judgment vacated; need for explicit culpability findings. |
| Whether the trial judge erred by not determining defendant’s degree of culpability. | Judge’s findings support a minimum degree of care failure based on intoxication. | Record did not conclusively place defendant on a level of culpability enough to prove neglect. | Remand required for thorough findings on culpability under G.S. and T.B. |
| Whether new evidence on Xanax dosage could affect the outcome. | Higher or lower Xanax ingestion could alter culpability/nature of care. | Evidence relevant to amount ingested should have been considered; ineffective assistance claimed for failing to present it. | Remand to allow full consideration of dosage and its effect on care. |
Key Cases Cited
- G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (minimum degree of care balancing dangers and risks)
- T.B. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 207 N.J. 294 (2011) (cautionary acts; gross negligence vs. negligence continuum)
- A.R. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 419 N.J. Super. 538 (App.Div. 2011) (gross negligence standard applied to parental conduct)
- J.L. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 410 N.J. Super. 159 (App.Div. 2009) (inattentive conduct not automatically abuse/neglect)
- R.M. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 411 N.J. Super. 467 (App.Div. 2010) (substantial risk of harm when parent uses drugs/alcohol with children)