DCPP VS. M.E. AND J.M., IN THE MATTER OF M.M. (FN-02-0295-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                       RECORD IMPOUNDED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-4705-17T1
    NEW JERSEY DIVISION
    OF CHILD PROTECTION
    AND PERMANENCY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    M.E.,
    Defendant-Appellant,
    and
    J.M.,
    Defendant.
    IN THE MATTER OF M.M.,
    a Minor.
    Submitted August 5, 2019 – Decided August 9, 2019
    Before Judges Sabatino and Rose.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County,
    Docket No. FN-02-0295-17.
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
    appellant (Fabiola E. Ruiz-Doolan, Designated
    Counsel, on the briefs.)
    Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
    respondent (Jason Wade Rockwell, Assistant Attorney
    General, of counsel; Victoria Kryzsiak, Deputy
    Attorney General, on the brief.)
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
    attorney for minor (Danielle Ruiz, Designated Counsel,
    on the brief.)
    Defendant M.E. appeals from the Family Part's January 16, 2018 order
    concluding, after a fact-finding hearing, she abused and neglected her seven-
    year old daughter, M.M. (Maria). 1 We affirm substantially for the reasons set
    forth in Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca's cogent oral opinion.
    The judge's opinion, spanning twenty transcript pages, sets forth the facts
    in detail, and we incorporate by reference her findings here. Judge Gallina-
    Mecca conducted the fact-finding hearing on October 26, 2017, at which
    plaintiff Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) presented the
    1
    Due to the similarity of family names and initials, we use pseudonyms for ease
    of reference and privacy. R. 1:38-3(d)(10).
    A-4705-17T1
    2
    testimony of caseworker Lori Laverty; Maria's father, J.M. (John) 2; and New
    Milford Police Officer Bryan Mone; and introduced documents in evidence,
    including Division investigation reports and police reports. Neither defendant
    nor the law guardian presented any witnesses or documentary evidence at the
    hearing.
    In her comprehensive opinion, Judge Gallina-Mecca carefully reviewed
    the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing. She found the testimony
    of Laverty, John, and Mone credible, based on their manner of testifying,
    personal knowledge, and lack of inconsistent or contradictory statements. The
    judge noted Laverty and Mone also lacked a personal interest in the outcome of
    the proceedings. Although John's interest in the proceedings was obviously
    personal, the judge recognized he had Maria's "best interest at heart." The judge
    also determined Maria's statements concerning defendant's conduct were
    corroborated. See N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4) (providing "previous statements made
    by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in
    evidence; provided, however, that no such statement, if uncorroborated, shall be
    sufficient to make a fact finding of abuse or neglect").
    2
    John was named as a defendant, but is not a party to this appeal.
    A-4705-17T1
    3
    Judge Gallina-Mecca concluded the Division established by a
    preponderance of the evidence that defendant abused or neglected Maria under
    N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4). The judge elaborated:
    A review of the material, relevant and competent
    evidence in this case leads to the inexorable conclusion
    that the Division has proven by a preponderance of the
    evidence that the defendant mother placed [Maria] at a
    substantial risk of harm when she was intoxicated and
    unable to care for her daughter and allowed her to be
    driven by a drunk driver. . . .
    The [c]ourt finds that [Maria]'s disclosures
    concerning parental behaviors were corroborated by the
    admissions made by the defendant mother and
    information [ob]tained by the Division during its
    investigation. Specifically, [defendant] admitted to
    drinking frequently to the point of intoxication. She
    also admitted that she had previously been referred to
    substance abuse treatment. These admissions are
    sufficient to corroborate [Maria]'s report concerning
    her mother's relationship with alcohol.
    [Maria] described her mother as drinking wine
    and alcohol every day. She explained that her mother
    often has too much to drink causing her to act
    differently. [Maria] described her mother when drunk
    as shaking, not walking properly, slurring her words,
    melting to the floor and being unable to get up or do
    things for herself when she drinks.
    [Maria] is fearful when her mother drinks and she
    has devised an escape plan if her mother ever becomes
    too drunk. By her own admissions, it is abundantly
    clear that the defendant mother has a serious untreated
    alcohol issue and the uncontroverted evidence
    A-4705-17T1
    4
    establishes that [Maria] was exposed to and [a]ffected
    by her mother's drinking.
    This fact is not, however, of any consequence in
    analyzing the defendant mother's actions on the
    evening of the referral incident to determine whether
    those accidents rose to the level of abuse or neglect. It
    is uncontroverted that [defendant] was inebriated while
    in the caretaking role of her daughter at the party on
    December 19, 2016 [(the incident date)].
    [Defendant] admitted that she consumed a
    significant amount of alcohol and was unable to drive
    herself and [Maria] home from the party. Nevertheless,
    in her impaired state she determined that her paramour
    [Michael] was indeed the appropriate choice of driver.
    While [defendant] surmised that [Michael] was not
    drunk since he only arrived to the party an hour before,
    her seven-year-old daughter was able to recognize that
    he was under the influence.
    [Maria] observed her mother at the party to be
    walking side-to-side with shaking arms. She described
    [Michael] as also shaking but not as much as her
    mother. These observations were corroborated as to
    [defendant] by her own admission and as to [Michael]
    by Officer Mone.
    As the Appellate Division concluded in [Division
    of Child Protection & Permanency v.] J.A., [436 N.J.
    Super. 61, 68 (App. Div. 2014),] a parent or guardian
    who permits a child to ride with an inebriated driver
    acts inconsistently with N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4). It is
    not less reckless but more so that [defendant] was not
    in a position to assess the condition of her paramour
    because she too was inebriated.
    A-4705-17T1
    5
    [Defendant] was responsible for her daughter's
    safety yet she was in an intoxicated state so that she
    could neither ensure her child's safety nor make an
    appropriate plan for her. Even if [Michael] had only
    one beer at the party and arrived late, [defendant] had
    no idea where he was previously and whether he had
    been drinking. Without any inquiry and a complete
    lack of judg[]ment, [defendant] permitted her child to
    ride with a drunk driver placing her precious child in
    peril because she was too intoxicated to adequately
    provide for her daughter's safety.
    It is unquestionable that [defendant] acted with
    reckless disregard for her child's safety that could have
    resulted in an unspeakable tragedy. Therefore, the
    [c]ourt finds that [defendant] failed to exercise a
    minimum degree of care in caring for her child and as
    such, the [c]ourt finds that the Division has successfully
    established by a preponderance of the evidence that
    [defendant] committed an act of abuse or neglect
    against her minor child pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-
    8.21(c)(4).
    Following a dispositional hearing, the judge determined there was no
    longer a need to continue litigation and dismissed the matter. Defendant now
    appeals. She argues the record is insufficient to establish abuse and neglect by
    a preponderance of the evidence. In particular, she claims the judge's finding
    that she was "intoxicated to the point she was unable to care for her daughter"
    is contradicted by Mone's response after he arrested Michael for driving while
    intoxicated, i.e., Mone did not arrest defendant and permitted Maria to return
    A-4705-17T1
    6
    home with her. The Division and law guardian urge us to affirm the judge's
    order.
    Our standard of review of the Family Part's fact-finding determination is
    limited.    On appeal from orders issued in Title 9, we accord considerable
    deference to the trial court's credibility determinations and findings of fact, as
    long as those findings are supported by adequate, substantial, and credible
    evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 
    189 N.J. 261
    , 278-79
    (2007). We maintain that deference "unless the trial court's findings 'went so
    wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made.'" 
    Id. at 279.
    Moreover,
    we do not readily second-guess the factual findings of the Family Part in general,
    given that court's special expertise in matters concerning children. N.J. Div. of
    Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 
    217 N.J. 527
    , 553 (2014). Applying that limited
    and well-settled scope of review, we affirm the trial judge's finding of abuse and
    neglect, substantially for the sound reasons expressed in Judge Gallina-Mecca's
    opinion. We add only a few comments.
    N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c) defines various circumstances that can comprise the
    abuse or neglect of a child. Among other things, the statute specifically covers:
    [A] child whose physical, mental, or emotional
    condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger
    of becoming impaired as the result of the failure of his
    A-4705-17T1
    7
    parent or guardian, as herein defined, to exercise a
    minimum degree of care . . . in providing the child with
    proper supervision or guardianship, by unreasonably
    inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or
    substantial risk thereof, including the infliction of
    excessive corporal punishment; or by any other acts of
    a similarly serious nature requiring the aid of the
    court . . . .
    [N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b).]
    Our Supreme Court has noted, "[t]he law's paramount concern is the safety
    of the children, and not the culpability of parental conduct." N.J. Div. of Youth
    & Family Servs. v. A.L., 
    213 N.J. 1
    , 18 (2013) (citations and internal quotation
    marks omitted); see also G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Youth & Family
    Servs., 
    157 N.J. 161
    , 177 (1999). "The focus in abuse and neglect matters . . .
    is on promptly protecting a child who has suffered harm or faces imminent
    danger." 
    A.L., 213 N.J. at 18
    (emphasis added) (citing N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)).
    Relevant here, a court need not wait until a child is actually harmed or
    neglected before it can act in the welfare of that minor. N.J. Div. of Youth &
    Family Servs. v. V.M., 
    408 N.J. Super. 222
    , 235 (App. Div. 2009) (citing In re
    Guardianship of D.M.H., 
    161 N.J. 365
    , 383 (1999)). Thus, "[i]n the absence of
    actual harm, a finding of abuse and neglect can be based on proof of imminent
    A-4705-17T1
    8
    danger and substantial risk of harm." 
    A.L., 213 N.J. at 23
    (citing N.J.S.A. 9:6-
    8.21(c)(4)(b)).
    A court's finding of abuse or neglect must be based on a preponderance of
    the evidence when the proof is considered in its totality.         N.J.S.A. 9:6-
    8.46(b)(1); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. C.M., 
    181 N.J. Super. 190
    ,
    201 (App. Div. 1981) ("In child abuse and neglect cases the elements of proof
    are synergistically related. Each proven act of neglect has some effect on the
    [child].     One act may be 'substantial' or the sum of many acts may be
    'substantial.'"). Notably, the Title 9 proof standard is less stringent than in
    guardianship cases for the termination of parental rights, which must instead be
    proven by clear and convincing evidence. See N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The
    proofs adduced before Judge Gallina-Mecca amply met these evidentiary
    standards.
    As the judge aptly found, the Division established, by a preponderance of
    the credible evidence, defendant abused or neglected Maria by failing to
    recognize in her intoxicated state that Michael was too intoxicated to drive.
    Defendant also later acknowledged her brother, who had not been drinking on
    the incident date, was a viable alternative to drive Maria home. Although the
    judge was careful to limit her findings to the incident date, she also aptly cited
    A-4705-17T1
    9
    Maria's continued trepidation that defendant's ongoing inebriation would
    interfere with her ability to parent. Notably, Laverty testified that in the course
    of her ten-year employment with the Division, she had never experienced a child
    of Maria's age "formulating an escape plan" under similar circumstances.
    The evidence of neglect is readily apparent from the record. Defendant's
    ongoing inebriation impacted Maria's welfare. Indeed, Maria's disclosures to
    Laverty about defendant's appearance when she drank were remarkable for a
    seven-year-old child. Maria said defendant's "arms shake, . . . she slurs her
    words together . . . [she] walks side to side." Maria further told Laverty that
    defendant and Michael "drink together sometimes and [Maria] thinks at least
    one of them shouldn't be drinking . . . because at least one of them should have
    a brain." Defendant and Michael "don't make good decisions when they're drunk
    and at least one of them should have good ideas." Maria was "afraid when her
    mother . . . drink[s] because when her mother melts to the floor, she can't take
    care of herself and [Maria] knows that she can't take care of [Maria] either."
    Defendant did not dispute Maria's account. Although defendant denied
    she was an alcoholic, she admitted she "sometimes" drank alcohol to the point
    of intoxication.   Defendant also acknowledged a prior family court order
    directing her to attend substance abuse treatment, but claimed she failed to do
    A-4705-17T1
    10
    so for financial reasons. Thus, Maria's claims of abuse or neglect are amply
    corroborated by defendant's own statements.
    Contrary to defendant's contention, her actions on the day of the incident
    placed Maria in imminent danger, even though Mone permitted the child to
    return home with defendant. When Mone pulled over Michael's car, "[r]ight
    away [he] smelled the odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle." Michael
    admitted he consumed "about five beers," failed the standard field sobriety test,
    and his blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.15 percent, supporting Mone's field
    test findings. See N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) (providing a person who operates a motor
    vehicle is considered under the influence of intoxicating liquor if his or her BAC
    is 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood).
    We therefore conclude the Division introduced substantial credible
    evidence to demonstrate defendant abused or neglected Maria by allowing her
    daughter to ride in an automobile Michael was driving while legally intoxicated.
    As Judge Gallina-Mecca recognized, a parent "who permits a child to ride with
    an inebriated driver acts inconsistently with N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)." 
    J.A., 436 N.J. Super. at 68
    . "[N]o reasonable person could fail to appreciate the danger
    of permitting children to ride in a motor vehicle driven by an inebriated
    operator." 
    Id. at 69.
    Thus, in J.A., we found that a father "was grossly negligent
    A-4705-17T1
    11
    in failing to protect the children from the imminent risk posed by [their mother's]
    driving." 
    Id. at 69-70.
    Here, defendant's gross negligence was underscored by
    her inability to recognize Michael's intoxication.
    Affirmed.
    A-4705-17T1
    12