### RE CORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 1536

- 19
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD P ROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. A.H., Defendant

- Appellant,
and M.G., Defendant.

IN THE MATTER OF K.H., a minor.

Submitted March 8, 2021

– Decided April 27, 2021 Before Judges Currier and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FN

- 12

- 0180

- 18

.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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

- 3.2 A

- 1536

- 19 Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Robyn Veasey, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Beth Anne Hahn, Designated Counsel, on t he briefs). Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel ; Michael A. Thompson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney f or minor (David Valentin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant A.H. (Arthur) 1 appeals from the October 29, 2018 Family Part order finding he abused and neglected his seven

- year - old daughter , K.H. (Katie) , under N.J.S.A. 9: 6

- 8.21 by using illicit drugs in her presence and leaving her alone in the middle of the night in an unlocked apartment while he went to purchase heroin. We affirm. Defendant M.G. (Mary) 2 is Katie's mother. At the time of these events , Arthur and Ma ry were living together.

1 We use initials and pseudonyms to protect the child's privacy. R. 1:38

- 3(d)(12).

2 Mary has not appealed from the court order finding she abused and neglected Katie within the meaning of Title Nine

.3 A

- 1536

- 19

At approximately 3:30 a.m. on M arch 30, 2018, Milltown police officer Sergeant James Mioduszewski pulled over a taxicab for a motor vehicle violation. Arthur and Mary were passengers in the cab. During the fact

- finding hearing, Mioduszewski testified that he observed drug paraphernalia in the back seat of the cab next to Arthur. Although Arthur denied owning the paraphernalia , he told the officer he had some other narcotics in his possession , spe cifically two glassine folds containing heroin and a " personal [] amount " of crack cocaine. Arthur and Mary were subsequently arrested. Mioduszewski was familiar with the couple a nd knew they had a daughter.
When he asked about K atie's whereabouts, Mary told the officer that a woman who lived in the apartment next door was watching her. Mioduszewski then

" went to [the neighbor's apartment], pounded on the door, [and] rang the
doorbell

. . . to ensure that the daughter was safe. " Nobody answer ed the door. Mioduszewski then went to Mary's apartment to check on Katie

. As the front door was unlocked, he walked into the apartment and found the child

a slee p in a bed. He testified that he also observed four pills laying on a coffee table. 3 The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) assumed custody of K atie that night and placed her with relatives.

3 The pills were later identified as an over

- the

- counter pain reliever.4 A

- 1536

- 19

Division investigator s interviewed M ary on March 30, 2018 and on April 2, 2018. Mary stated that on the evening prior to these events , Katie had gone
to bed ar ound 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. Thereafter, M ary asked her neighbor, J osie , to watch K atie while Mary and Arthur took a taxicab to the next town t o buy and use heroin. M ary said she returned h ome at approximately 10:30 p.m.
Later , at approximately 2:30 a.m. , M ary and Arthur left the apartment again to buy crack cocaine. M ary said she texted J osie telling her tha t she was leaving the apartment and asking her to watch K atie

. M ary stated she never left
K atie at home without adult supervision. She admitted to the caseworker that
she wa s a heroin addict and she and Arthur had been using heroin daily since
2017.
Th e Division also interviewed Arthur on March 30, 2018. He told the investigator K atie had gone to bed around 8:30 or 9:00 p.m . the night of these
events

. According to Arthur, he and Mary went to his uncle's house in the next
town around 11:30 p.m. He sai d he observed M ary speak with J osie before the couple left, asking her to check in on their daughter. He did not know if J osie had a key to the apartment. Arthur den ied using any drugs that evening. He acknowledged to previously spending time in prison for possession of controlled dangerous5 A

- 1536

- 19

substances, and , although he was sober for a period of time after his release in
2010 , h e stated he relapsed in 2018. On April 2, 2018, Division caseworker Denise Purdue interviewed K atie. She told Purdue she live d in her mother's apartment with her parents , and s he
f elt " a little safe " living with them . She reported that she rarely ate three meals a day. While h er school provide d lunch, neither parent cooked dinner

. Katie said she would make herself a sandwich , e at a snack , or go to bed hungry. In discussing the events of March 30, K atie stated she did not know her parents had left the apartment that night. But she recall ed one time when she woke up in the middle of the night and found her parents were not home. She said t he house phone was not charged, and she could n o t call her parents because she did not know their cell phone numbers. She stated she was scared when she

w oke up and realiz ed she was alone. Katie told Purdue that her parents would bring spoons and a makeup box containing needles into the bathroom where they would stay for about half an
hour. She said w hen her parents came out of the bathroom, M ary 's voice wa s strained, and Arthur would fall asleep standing up. K atie said this behavior began in 2018. M ary confirmed that she and defendant would go into the
bathroom each day to use heroin when K atie was home.6 A

- 1536

- 19

K atie described to Purdue how her parents regularly took her to the next town where they would meet a "strange" man on the street and "exchang [ e ] things " with him. Because they o ften did not have cab fare to get back hom e, Katie would walk with her parents from the neighboring town back to their apartment

. M ary confirmed Katie's statements

. K atie also stated that a man often c a me to the apartment and she and Arthur would hide in the attic while M ary spoke to the man. Katie said she also had a hiding spot outside

. K atie thought M ary was trying to get money from the

man because afterwards they would have enough money to take a taxi to the
next town. When the D ivision questioned M ary about these statements, she explained she and Arthur ha d a scam where they f ou nd men on Craigslist under the pretense of providing sexual services and invite d them over to the apartment. She stated that when the men c a me over , Arthur and K atie would hide in the attic while M ary g o t money from the m e n before leav ing the apartment through
a different exit. Arthur would then come down and tell the m e n to leave. The D ivision also interviewed J osie

. She described M ary and Arthur a s

" dope addicts " and said she ha d seen M ary inject herself with heroin while K atie was home.7 A

- 1536

- 19

J osie recalled Mary asking her to watch Katie on March 29 , 2018

som etime between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. , and that she waited with the child for about thirty minutes until her parents returned to the apa rtment. She could not recall if M ary asked her to watch K atie again later that night or in the early morning hours

. J osie stated that M ary and Arthur ha d a daily routine of taking cabs to the
next town and asking her to watch K atie . She d id not have a key to M ary 's apartment. J osie also confirmed M ary ha d a scam where she invite d men to her apartment, t ook money from them, and t old them she ha d to go to the other room to get undressed. M ary would then exit the apartment and often go into J osie 's apartment to wait for the m e n to leave. She stated Mary ha d performed this scam while K atie was home and she recalled Mary sc amm ing four different men in a single day. On occasion , M ary and K atie would hide in J osie 's apartment during and after the scam. At the conclusion of the investigation, t he Division found the allegations against M ary and Arthur for inadequate supervision, risk of harm , and exposing a child to substance abuse were substantiated. T he Division ' s subsequent

v erified c omplaint and o rder to s how c ause for custody was grante d.8 A

- 1536

- 19

On September 28, 2018, Judge Stolte conducted a fact

- finding hearing. Arthur and Mary were not present. When the court inquired as to their whereabouts, counsel replied that they did not have any information. Counsel did not request an adjournment. The Division presented two witnesses: Officer Mioduszewski and the Division case worker , Purdue . The Milltown p olice report, the Division's screening summary , and its investigation report were admitted into evidence. Defendants did not present any witnesses.
On October 29, 2018, Judge Stolte issued a well

- reasoned oral decision finding the Division had shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Arthur abused or neglected K atie by leaving her "home alone with the doors unlocked . . . specifically for the purchase of narcotics" and in caring for K atie while under the influence of illegal substances. The judge found both Mioduszewski and
Purdue wer e credible witnesses, describing them as " forthright " and answe r ing questions directly

. The judge further noted that the evidence was largely undisputed. She
stated it was clear that Arthur left K atie " home alone with the doors unlocked with no certainty that [Josie] or any other adult would be caring for [his] child in [his] absence. [ H e] left [his] [seven]

- year - old daughter home unattended in the middle of the night. "9 A

- 1536

- 19

Indisputably, t hose actions alon e placed K atie at risk

. However, Judge Stolte also found that Arthur put K atie at an even higher level of risk when he
and M ary perpetrated a scam on numerous men, c reat ing a dangerous environment for her

. Based on these facts, the court found d efendant " did not take a proper measure to remove any potential harm or danger that could come to [K atie ] . . . and [his] actions were grossly negligent. " The court distinguished the circumstances presented here fro m cases where children were left alone and unsupervised due to an honest mistake made by the ir parent s . Here, Arthur intentionally left K atie alone in the middle of the night with no ability to watch over her or ensur e her safety. Arthur did not confirm whether anyone would be checking on K atie and his " conduct did not appear to consider the possible repercussions of leaving [K atie ] unsupervised or alone in the home in the middle of the night with unlocked doors. " The court also determined that Arthur disregarded the substantial risk of harm his drug use posed to Katie

. As Arthur was arrested with drugs and drug paraphernalia in his possession , the court found it reasonable to infer that, had he not been arrested, he would have returned home with those substances, and placed K atie in " imminent danger. "10 A

- 1536

- 19

The court also noted that pills were found " laying in [] plain view " in the home and that K atie " could have accidentally consumed one of them and . . .
could have suffered harm as a result. " The court further stated that K atie was very aware of where her parents kept their needles and spoons and could have easily gained access to them, thereby creating a substantial risk of harm or danger of impairment. K atie had observed Arthur disappearing into the bathroom with a box of needles for half an hour on numerous occasions and observed him sleeping while standing when he came out

. Judge Stolte concluded that Arthur left K atie unattended on the night of March 30, 2018, and frequently exposed her to his substance abuse while in a caregiving role , which conduct demonstrat ed a fail ure to exercise a minimum degree of care. Therefore, t he Division had established Arthur had abused and neglected his daughter within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 9 :6

- 8.21(c)

. On appeal, Arthur contends the court erred in fi n d i ng he abused or neglected K atie because he was not her primary custodial parent or caretaker
and Mary was responsible for all childcare and day

- to

- day decisions

. He further asserts that even if he w a s a primary caretaker , the D iv i sion did not produce sufficient credible eviden ce establishing he inadequately supervised K atie o r exposed her to an i mminent risk of substantial harm

. Arthur argues the court11 A

- 1536

- 19

i mp roperly supported its decision with K atie's out

- of

- court statements, which lack e d the requisite corroboration

. Arthur also contends his due process rights

wer e violated when the trial proceeded in his absence.
Our review of a trial court ' s fact

- finding decision is limited. " Because of the family courts ' special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters, appellate courts should accord deference to family court factfinding. " Cesare v. Cesare , 154 N.J. 394, 413 ( 1998). Factual findings are upheld " when supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence " ; however, " [a] trial court ' s interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deferenc e. " N.J. Div. of Youth and Family
Servs. v. R.G. & J.G. , 217 N.J. 527, 552

- 53 (2014) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. E.P. , 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008) and Manalapan Realty L

. P

. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Manalapan , 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).
We initially briefly address Arthur's contention that he was not accorded
h is due process rights. He asserts he was not present at the fact

- finding hearing
because he was incarcerated at the time

. H owever, he has not provid ed any proof of his confinement. 4

4 Arthur was present at a compliance hearing in August 2018. Dur ing the hearing, the Division advised the court that Arthur was "briefly incarcerated12 A

- 1536

- 19

Even if Arthur was detained, t he Family C ourt conducted the fact

- finding
h earing according to the proper statutory procedures. The court ensured defendant was represented by counsel. The judge inquired where defendant was , to which counsel replied, "I don't have any information.

. . . " The court also confirmed that everyone was ready. Pri o r to starting trial, the judge indicated she was willing to hear any requests or pretrial motions before proceeding. There were no applications. Arthur's counsel did not request an adjournment at any time. Although Arthur was not present, his counsel fully participate d in the trial. She cross

- examined the Division's witnesses, objected to evidence , and
p resented a closing argument

. Therefore, Arthur was afforded his due process rights and presented his case through counsel

. We discern no merit in Arthur 's conten tion that the Family Court erred in finding he abused or neglected Katie. Under N.J.S.A. 9:6

- 8.21(c)(4)(b ), a child is considered abused or neglected if the child ' s :

physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming imp aired as the result of the failure of [the child's] parent or guardian, as herein defined, to exercise a

from June [ 11 ] to June [ 26 ] on CDS charges." Arthur's counsel informed the court that th e charges ar ose from the March arrest. The court set the fact

- finding hearing date during this proceeding.13 A

- 1536

- 19 minimum degree of care

. . . in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted har m, or substantial risk thereof.

. . . [N.J.S.A. 9:6

- 8.21(c)(4)(b).] The court must determine what constitutes "a minimum degree of care" under the particular circumstances. G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Youth and Family Servs. , 157 N.J. 161, 181

- 82 (1999). "[A] guardian fails to exercise a minimum degree of care when he or she is aware of the dangers inherent in a situation and fails adequately to supervise the child or reckless ly creates a risk of serious injury to that child." Id. at 181. " [ M ] inimum degree of care" refers to conduct that is "grossly or wantonly, negligent, but not necessarily intentional." Id. at 178. There is no intent required to find abuse. I bi d. If a guardian's act or omission does not meet the "minimum degree of care" required by law, the substantiated finding must stand. Ibid. "Where an ordinary reasonable person would understand that a situation poses dangerous risks and acts without regard for the potentially serious consequences, the law holds him responsible for the injuries he causes." Id. at 179. Knowledge is imputed to the actor. Id. at 178; see also N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.B. , 207 N.J. 294, 306

- 09 (2011) (reaffirmin g the G.S. test).14 A

- 1536

- 19

Our Supreme Court has held that the Division can sustain a Title Nine action by proving that a child suffered actual harm or was placed in imminent risk of harm because of parental action or inaction. N.J. Dep't of Children & Families v . A.L. , 213 N.J. 1, 23 (2013). However, not every instance of drug use by a parent will be sufficient to sustain a finding of abuse or neglect. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. V.T. , 423 N.J. Super. 320, 331 (App. Div. 2011). Because Arthur ass erts for the first time that he was not Katie's primary custodia n or caretaker , we first address th is argument before proceeding to a consideration of whether he failed to exercise a minimum degree of care in properly supervising his daughter. Arthur's contention is m eritless. Under T itle Nine , a parent or guar d i a n is "any natural parent . . . who has assumed responsibility for the care, custody, or control of a child or upon whom there is a legal duty for such care." N.J.S.A.
9:6

- 8.21(a). In addition to being Katie's biological father , Arthur was residing with her at the time of these events. Moreover, Arthur told the D ivision investigator that on March 29 , he took Katie to school , later picked her up with Mary , and then they went to the grocery store. A fter they got back to the apartment, Arthur said M ary made dinner and all three of them played a board15 A

- 1536

- 19

game. Defendant told the investigator it was a "normal day" and "nothing was out of the ordinary." Arthur's description of his relationship with K atie was that of a parent or guardian. In a ddit io n, he was the child' s biological father and w a s living wi th her and the c hild' s mother for at least several m o n ths before these events. He has not demonstrated he does not meet Title Nine 's broad definition of parent or guardian. We also are unpersuaded by Arthur's assertion that the Divis i on did not meet its b urden to present competent , mat e rial , and relevant evidence that Arthur inadequately supervised K atie. Here, there was ample evidence that Arthur failed to exercise a minimum degree of care. He left Katie alone in an unlocked home in the middle of the night. When Arthur left at 2:30 a . m ., he made no arrangements for anyone to care for his seven

- year - old daughter or to ensure her safety. When Mioduszewski arrived at the apartment to check on K atie, he found her sleeping in the unlocked a partment with no adult present. Ther e w e re loose pills on the coffee ta b le. K atie told the Division caseworker that her mother kept needles in her makeup box. Moreover, Katie had aw akened on a n earlier16 A

- 1536

- 19

occasi on in the middle of the night to find she was alone in the apartment which scared her

. There was more than am p le evidence that Arthur's conduct recklessly and wantonly created a risk of serious harm by leaving Katie home alone in the middle of the night in an unlocked apartment when he left to purchase drugs. In addition, Judge Stolte's determination that Arthur's use of heroin in the home while Katie was present created an imminent risk of harm was supported b y sufficient evidence in the record. When po lice stopped the taxicab in which Arthur was riding, the officer observed drug paraphernalia on the seat beside
Arthur. He had heroin and crack cocaine on his person. As the judge noted, if the cab had not been stopped, Arthur would have returned to the apartment and
expos ed Katie to the drugs. Moreover, Katie told the Division investigator that her parents would go into the bathroom with needles and spoons and come out a half hour later. Afterwards, her mother's voice was strained and Arthur fell aslee p while standing up. Mary corroborated Katie's account , sta t ing she and Arthur would

use heroin in the bathroom wh ile K atie wa s home

. She also said she and Arthur used heroin daily

.17 A

- 1536

- 19

K atie was put in an imminent risk of harm by being left alone. Arthur's substance abuse contribute d to th e risk of harm because he l eft K atie home alone in the middle of the night in an unlocked apartment to go to the next town to purchase heroin. In addition , t he presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia in the home also created a substantial risk of injury to the child.
We turn next to Arthur's contention that the Family Part improperly supported its findings wholly on Katie's uncorroborated hearsay statement s . We disagree. Hearsay is defined as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. N.J.R.E. 801(c). "Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by [the Rules of Evidence] or by other law." N.J.R.E. 802. Under N.J.S.A. 9.6

- 8.46(a)(4), "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 uncorrobor ated, shall be sufficient to make a fact finding of abuse or neglect." A finding of abuse or neglect "must be based on competent reliable evidence." N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. L.A. , 357 N.J. Super. 155, 166 (App. Div. 2003). Although " [ t ] h e most effective types of corroborative18 A

- 1536

- 19

evidence may be eyewitness testimony, a confession, an admission[,] medical or scientific evidence" , it "need only provide support for the out

- of

- court statements." Ibid. (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. Z.P.R. , 351 N.J. Super. 427, 436 (App. Div. 2002) ) . " [ C ] orroborative evidence need not directly relate to the accused." Ibid. During the fact

- finding hearing, the court admitted the Division's investigation report into evidence under the business rec ords exception , N.J. R. E. 803(c)(6)

. The report contain ed the interviews that the Division conducted with Arthur , M ary , K atie , and J osie

. Purdue , the Division caseworker, also testified at the hearing. In her decision, Judge Stolte made it clear that she found statements made by K atie to the D ivision caseworker that were corroborated by M ary w e re admissible. She did n o t rely on any statements M ary made about Arthur ' s words or actions as she found they w ere hearsay. However, the court did not need any corroborati ve evidence to find K atie was left home alone on March 30, 2018. Mioduszewski testified regarding his own observations. When he arrived at the apartment at approximat ely 4:00 a.m. , he found K at ie in an unlocked apartment without any adult supervision. The19 A

- 1536

- 19

officer's t estimony provides a mple support for the court's finding that Arthur inadequately supervised his child.
Purdue 's interview of M ary corroborate d K atie 's statements concerning Arthu r 's substance abuse and suppor ted the court's finding that Arthur's drug abuse exposed K atie to an imminent risk of harm. Katie said her parents both went into the bathroom with spoons and a makeup box containing needles

. She said when they came out after a half hour, her parents sounded and acted strangely

. The child said th e behavior began in 2018. M ary co nfirmed this behavior in h er interview , stat ing she and defendant went into the bathroom when Katie was home to use heroin on a daily basis. Arthur himself stated he relapsed in 2018.
K atie also described for the investigator her parent's daily trips to the next town and their "exchang [ es ] " with a man on the street . M ary said she and Arthur
t ook K atie t o purchase drugs and they usually walk ed home because they d id not have enough money for a cab.
K atie's reports about her mother 's scams to get money from unwitting strangers was also corroborated by Mary and J osie

. Although M ary 's interview does implicate Arthur , her statement s describe her actions and observations. She
did not report nor did the judge rely on any statements Mary attributed to Arthur.20 A

- 1536

- 19

M ary 's and Josie 's interview s sufficiently corroborate d K atie 's statements and support a finding of abuse and neglect as defined under Title Nine.
Affirmed

.