Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1456-14T1
02-22-2016
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.C., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF N.S., J.V., and J.V., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven E. Braun, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jonathan M. Villa, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor N.S. (Linda Vele Alexander, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Leone and Whipple. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FN-09-365-13. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven E. Braun, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jonathan M. Villa, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor N.S. (Linda Vele Alexander, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant, J.C. (Jane), appeals from an April 16, 2014 order following a fact-finding hearing, in which the trial court determined she abused and neglected her daughter, N.S. (Nancy), by using excessive corporal punishment. We affirm.
We use pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the children and for ease of reference. --------
We discern the following facts from the record. Jane has three children, Nancy (age thirteen), James, and Jill. The family came to the attention of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) on February 24, 2013, after receiving a report from Nancy's school. Faculty at the school reported that Nancy had bruises on her face. Initially, Nancy explained to her guidance counselor that her mother, Jane, had locked her out of the house and forced her to spend the night outside of the home. Nancy asserted that when she returned home, Nancy and Jane got into an altercation during which Jane struck Nancy with her hand and scratched her face causing her to have several marks and a black eye.
An investigator from the Division subsequently met with Nancy. The investigator noted that Nancy had prominent black and blue marks under her eyes, a scratch on her face, and welts on her arms. Nancy told the investigator that on the evening in question she had been at the mall and was unaware that Jane had been calling her cell phone. When she arrived home, she was unable to go inside because she had been locked out. Nancy spent that night at her boyfriend's house. When Nancy went home the next morning, the door was still locked; Nancy then went to the landlord and obtained a key to get inside. Nancy told the Division worker that when she went inside the home, Jane was waiting for her with a cable television wire and beat Nancy with it. Nancy stated that the beating lasted several minutes. She also told the investigator that she was afraid of her mother when she became angry. Nancy also reported that her mother told her to lie to anyone who asked about her marks and bruises, and to tell those who asked about them that she was "jumped" while on the Hudson-Bergen light rail.
Jane was later interviewed at the county prosecutor's office, where the Division investigator was present. Jane initially denied hitting Nancy with a cable wire, claiming that she only hit Nancy with an open hand. Ultimately, however, Jane admitted to using the cable wire and that she told Nancy to say someone "jumped" her on the light rail. She stated that she had been worried about Nancy and had spent the night trying to track her down. Jane denied locking Nancy out of the house. Jane was then substantiated for abuse and neglect by the Division, and a safety protection plan was put in place.
On April 15, 2013, the Division received another referral from Nancy's school. The school guidance counselor reported that Nancy and Jane had been involved in another incident. Nancy said her mother had hit her face and cut her inner lip. After the investigator spoke with Jane, who was reportedly angry and uncooperative, the Division filed a complaint against Jane. The trial court granted care and supervision of all three of Jane's children to the Division, and transferred physical custody of Nancy to her biological father, John.
The court conducted a fact-finding hearing during which the court heard testimony from the Division investigator, the school guidance counselor, John, and Jane. The trial judge determined that on February 24, 2013 Jane inflicted excessive corporal punishment on Nancy by striking her with a cable wire, which left bruises and welts. The trial judge made no finding of abuse or neglect with regard to the April 2013 incident. On October 9, 2014, the trial court terminated the litigation, as Jane had complied with services and Nancy had been safely returned to her care. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Jane argues that the incident represented an aberration in her child-rearing behavior and that a single incident of corporal punishment of Nancy does not constitute abuse or neglect as a matter of law. We disagree.
Appellate review of a trial court's findings of fact is limited and "findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). Family courts in particular have "broad discretion because of [their] specialized knowledge and experience in matters involving parental relationships and the best interests of children." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 427 (2012). However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts [is] not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b) defines a child as abused or neglected where the child's
physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as the result of the failure of his parent or guardian . . . 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 . . . .
When considering whether the Division has met its burden in establishing a Title Nine cause of action alleging physical injury through excessive corporal punishment, we "focus on the circumstances leading up to the injury and on the harm to the child, and not on the [parent or] guardian's intent." N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328, 344 (2010). Additionally, we look to "(1) the reasons underlying [defendant's] actions; (2) the isolation of the incident; and (3) the trying circumstances which [the defendant] was undergoing due to [the child's] psychological disorder." N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. K.A., 413 N.J. Super. 504, 523 (App. Div. 2010), certif. dismissed as improvidently granted, 208 N.J. 355 (2011). Such analyses are fact-specific and particularized, and thus determined on a case-by-case basis. Div. of Child Prot. and Permanency v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015).
Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence of the physical altercation between her and Nancy to support a finding of abuse or neglect. She asserts that the finding of excessive corporal punishment was limited to an isolated incident, the injuries did not require medical treatment, and there was no danger of permanent injury. Jane also asserts that the trial judge improperly discounted Nancy's excessively defiant behavior.
Several considerations properly animated the trial judge's decision in this case. As enumerated in K.A., defendant's reasons for her actions are significant. K.A., supra, 413 N.J. Super. at 512. The trial judge considered Nancy's defiant behavior of staying out late without permission and spending the night at her boyfriend's house. The judge specifically noted that defendant, like the defendant in K.A., was faced with a child with challenging behavior, a defiant teenager. However, in K.A., the defendant disciplined a child by striking her on the shoulder with a closed fist for four or five seconds. Id. at 506. Here, Jane attacked Nancy with a cable wire, whipping her face and body multiple times in a sustained assault, hitting her so severely that she displayed prominent bruises and welts. Such an assault cannot be justified as appropriate discipline for Nancy's earlier defiant behavior. "K.A. is readily distinguishable from the facts herein, primarily due to the nature and extent of the injuries to [Nancy] and the instrumentalit[y] used to inflict them." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. S.H., 4 39 N.J. Super. 137, 146 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 222 N.J. 16 (2015) (finding that a mother's use of a golf club and her teeth on her teenager, causing a contusion and bite marks, was excessive corporal punishment).
The trial court specifically found that defendant hit Nancy after lying in wait for her to come home, and that she premediated the use of an implement (the cable wire) to punish her. The premeditated use of the cable wire used to inflict punishment on Nancy, the extent of her injuries, the unreasonable and disproportionate response, and the visible marks left on Nancy's body outweigh the fact that this incident was isolated. Id. at 146 (explaining that the instrumentalities and extent of injuries are important considerations in determining whether corporal punishment is excessive); N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. B.H., 391 N.J. Super. 322, 340 (App. Div. 2017) (explaining that using a belt to injure a young child constitutes excessive corporal punishment when leaving several visible welts).
In S.H., supra, 439 N.J. Super. at 147-50, we determined that an isolated incident of physical injury was sufficient to establish abuse or neglect. We explained that an extreme response not the result of adequate provocation, is sufficient for a finding of excessive corporal punishment. We also clarified K.A., indicating that
[w]e do not read K.A. to suggest that the test for determining excessive corporal
punishment should be any different when a child has a disability . . . . We read K.A. to hold only that the underlying behavior of a child, with or without a disability, can be a relevant factor in assessing the reasonableness of the parent's response to the child's outburst.
[Id. at 149-50.]
Here, the trial judge appropriately considered the impact of Nancy's defiant behavior in the context of all of the other relevant circumstances. We perceive no reason to disturb his determination.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION