Court Opinion

ID: 9962005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 14:06:31.868022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:38.872262
License: Public Domain

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                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0927-22

NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,

         Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

R.S.,

         Defendant,

and

F.A.,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

IN THE MATTER OF A.A.,
C.A., and B.A., minors.
________________________

                   Submitted April 10, 2024 – Decided April 22, 2024

                   Before Judges Firko and Vanek.
            On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
            Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County,
            Docket No. FN-04-0320-21.

            Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
            appellant (Phuong Vinh Dao, Designated Counsel, on
            the briefs).

            Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
            respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney
            General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, Deputy
            Attorney General, on the brief).

            Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, Law
            Guardian, attorney for minor A.A. (Meredith Alexis
            Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Noel
            Christian Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of
            counsel and on the brief).

            Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, Law
            Guardian, attorney for minors C.A. and B.A. (Meredith
            Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel;
            Todd S. Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Defendant F.A.1 appeals from the February 22, 2022 Family Part order

finding he abused or neglected his three minor daughters, A.A., C.A., and B.A.,

under Title 9, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b), through the "infliction of excessive

corporal punishment."     The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and

1
  We use initials and fictitious names to protect the parties' privacy. R. 1:38-
3(d)(12).

                                                                           A-0927-22
                                        2
Permanency (DCPP) and the Law Guardians representing A.A., C.A., and B.A.

seek affirmance. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the judge's

fact-finding decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence and is

consistent with the applicable well-settled law. We affirm.

                                         I.

        We discern the following facts from the evidence adduced at the February

22, 2022 fact-finding hearing. A.A., C.A., and B.A. are the biological children

of F.A., born to his marriage with R.S. 2 in 2004, 2005, and 2009, respectively.

F.A. and R.S. divorced in 2011. Around 2015, F.A. obtained full custody of his

three daughters and moved with them from North Carolina to New Jersey.

Further details of that custody determination are not in the record before us.

        In the early-morning hours of February 7, 2021, the Gloucester Township

Police Department responded to a call seeking help for A.A. and C.A. at the

home they shared with their father. In the hours preceding the call, F.A. arrived

home from the gym and discovered C.A. using her cellphone to communicate

with friends. This upset F.A., as he felt his house rules regarding the use of

electronic devices had been violated.

2
    The judge made no findings as to R.S., and she is not a party to this appeal.
                                                                            A-0927-22
                                         3
      F.A. began yelling at C.A. at such a volume that he could be heard by

A.A. in a separate room. F.A. then slapped C.A. hard enough that she "saw

stars." A.A. heard F.A. leave C.A.'s room and obtain a belt from his own room.

She knew it was a belt because of the "clanking sound" it made and because F.A.

had "hit [his daughters] previously . . . with the belt."

      C.A. went downstairs at F.A.'s request. He instructed her to bend and

place her hands on a dog kennel with her back facing him, which she refused to

do out of fear when she saw the belt in her father's hand. C.A. fell to the floor.

She testified she was not sure how she got on the floor but she did not believe

her father had pushed her.

      F.A. repeatedly swung the belt at C.A. while she was on the floor, so she

began "crawling back with [her] hands . . . behind [her], like crawling on the

floor kind of like the crab walk," as she was "trying not to get hit by the belt."

From upstairs, A.A. could hear "the sounds of him hitting [C.A.]" and her sister

screaming for help, but A.A. was conflicted as to whether she should help her

sister out of fear her father's punishment "would turn to [her]."

      Next, F.A. began trying to pull C.A. down the stairs to the basement. C.A.

was "hanging on to whatever [she] could to not go down to the basement." She

"knew from [a] previous . . . incident" that when F.A. took one of the girls "down

                                                                           A-0927-22
                                         4
to the basement[, he] was going to hurt [them] more, because he didn't want . . .

people to hear [their] screams." When C.A. continued resisting, F.A. "grabbed

[her] by [her] hair [as] he was . . . pulling [her] downstairs, and then [she]

tumbled down."

      Once in the basement, F.A. again hit C.A. with the belt and then "choked

[her] with two hands on top of [her]." C.A. testified: "At that point . . . I couldn't

breath[e] . . . and he was telling me he was going to kill me. But[] then once he

saw that I like really could not breath[e] . . . that's when he lifted his hands and

I could finally breath[e]."

      C.A. tried to back away from her father, but "he just kept beating [her]

with the belt everywhere." F.A. "hit [C.A.] on [her] face . . . in [her] left eye."

She testified: "That's when I finally tried to get up, because that's when I felt

my face—I felt my left eye and I felt there was something there. And, I

[realized] this is serious, so I got up and I sat on the couch."

      In an attempt to distract her father from continuing the beating, C.A. told

her father that A.A. had also been accessing electronic devices in a manner she

thought would upset F.A. F.A. called A.A. to the basement. When she arrived,

A.A. "could tell that [C.A.'s] face was bruised at least, like she had gotten injured

in the face." A.A. testified:

                                                                               A-0927-22
                                          5
            I sat . . . away from [C.A.] on the opposite end of the
            couch and he began to yell at me. . . . So, [C.A.] had
            told him that I had a second phone the year prior. So,
            he was yelling at me because of that. And, he was
            asking about [a]n Instagram account, because I was not
            allowed to have one. So, he was asking, yelling, and I
            just . . . said I had one just to make him less angry. And,
            so he—he still had the belt with him. So, he made [me]
            like kind of brace myself against the couch and then he
            began to hit me with the belt. And then like every so
            often he would stop and take a break. And he . . . would
            yell and me scream that, and then he would just
            continue to do it. . . . [H]e was hitting me . . . on my
            lower back to my butt.

      Eventually, F.A., A.A., and C.A. went back upstairs. F.A. instructed C.A.

to clean up the areas of the living room that were disturbed during their struggle

and he gave her ice for her injured eye. A.A. testified C.A. seemed "light-headed

or almost passed out," so F.A. "made her get . . water or . . . a cup of ice." A.A.

testified F.A. began trying to bypass the lock on her phone to access its content

but was unable to. As punishment for not unlocking her phone at his request,

F.A. began making A.A. do "pushups and planks" and hit her when she was

unable to perform as he wanted.

      F.A. then told A.A. and C.A. that he "had all night" to continue with their

respective punishments and instructed them to accompany him to his bedroom.

A.A. testified:

                                                                            A-0927-22
                                        6
             [H]e . . . made me do . . . pushup[s] and wall sits. And
             then he would hit me . . . . And he kept like asking for
             the passwords . . . .

             During this time he was sending [C.A.] in and out of
             the room. He would tell her to leave, and he would tell
             her to come back. I'm not quite sure why. But, she was
             just leaving in and out.

      While F.A. was hitting A.A., C.A. snuck into B.A.'s room and took her

electronic tablet. In between being called to and sent away from F.A.'s room,

C.A. used the tablet to contact one of her friends via Google Meet and told them

to "call the police because [her] dad was hurting [her] and [A.A.]." C.A.

testified:

             The police came . . . my dad heard a knock on the door
             and he . . . got up and he crept into the hallway where
             the staircase is, and he looked outside. . . . And, he saw
             there was an officer. And he said, who called the
             police? And [A.A.] said it was me. And . . . that's when
             he went . . . downstairs. And he told [A.A.] to go into
             her room and he told me to hide in . . . his closet.

      While sitting in the closet, C.A. considered whether she should disobey

her father's instructions and leave the closet to speak with the police stating:

             I was just scared for my sisters. [M]y dad wasn't going
             to stop any time soon . . . . I was scared he would hurt
             [A.A.]. I knew he wouldn't hurt her that bad, but I still
             didn't want her to . . . hurt anymore. So, that's why I
             decided to [talk to the] police.

             ....

                                                                            A-0927-22
                                         7
              [S]o when I came out into his room, I went to my sister.
              And my sister was telling me, please don't. You know
              we don't have nowhere to go. We're never going to find
              somewhere . . . for us to go. And I went downstairs and
              I opened up the door. . . . [T]he door slammed when I
              closed it. And then . . . the officer was like is that
              [C.A.]? And, then [F.A.] was like, yes.

        F.A. was arrested. 3 The three girls temporarily went to stay at the home

of F.A.'s girlfriend. On February 9, 2021, DCPP filed a complaint and order to

show cause (OTSC) seeking custody of the girls, permission to provide them

with medical treatment, and an order preventing F.A. from contacting his

daughters. The same day, the judge held a hearing and determined that the girls'

removal from their home was "necessary to avoid ongoing risk to life, safety,

health of those children." The judge granted DCPP custody of the girls. DCPP

arranged for the girls to have medical evaluations with Dr. Stephanie Lanese.

        On March 1, 2021, the judge held a hearing on the return date of the OTSC

and ordered DCPP to have continued custody of the girls. On April 8, 2021, the

three girls relocated to North Carolina to live with R.S. The judge held case

management conferences on April 30, May 25, July 23, October 25, and

November 16, 2021.

3
    The outcome of F.A.'s criminal proceedings is not in the record before us.
                                                                           A-0927-22
                                         8
      DCPP called Dr. Lanese, A.A., C.A., and DCPP investigator Noah Smith

to testify. The defense called no additional witnesses. Dr. Lanese was qualified

as an expert at trial with no objection. She testified that at the time of the exam,

which was three days after the incident, C.A. "still had injuries which were

consistent with the history she provided."

            On [C.A.'s] physical exam, starting from her face, she
            had a very large area of bruising over the left eye. It
            was about six centimeters by four centimeters. The
            bruising was yellow. Within that bruise, around the
            eye, on top of the upper eyelid there was a smaller area
            of a purply-red bruise. So, just on the eyelid, like above
            the . . . eyelashes. And then below the eyelid, on the
            lower eyelid there was also this darker bruising. And
            that could be due to gravity. Sometimes bruising, the
            blood goes down to the loosest part of the tissue on your
            face, which is actually your lower eyelids.

            Then right next to it, along her temple there was a very
            large curvilinear mark that went up from check up to
            the temple, and then back down. That mark was
            abraded and had scabbing on it by the time I saw her.

            She also had a f[a]int linear mark on the left cheek. On
            her right upper arm there was a very large nine
            centimeter by three centimeter curvilinear mark that
            went from the posterior aspect or the back of the arm,
            and down towards the elbow, towards the lateral side.

      Dr. Lanese further testified about numerous other bruises and scabs on

C.A.'s body from the February 7, 2021 incident in various stages of healing.

DCPP introduced photographs taken from the night of the incident, which Dr.

                                                                             A-0927-22
                                         9
Lanese testified accurately depicted the injuries she observed during her

examinations.

      As to A.A., Dr. Lanese testified: "[A.A.] had on her right lower arm,

around the wrist, she had linear and curvilinear marks and another mark that

looked like it was in the shape of an L. . . . The left lower back she had another

linear mark and the left buttock she had a linear mark, as well." Dr. Lanese

testified that she recommended all three girls be "seen by a psychologist to

determine the psychological effects of" the physical abuse which had occurred

over the course of years.

      Smith, who managed the girls' case, testified at trial. Smith testified that

the photographs offered into evidence accurately depicted A.A.'s and C.A.'s

injuries from the night of the incident.

      A.A. and C.A. also testified at trial. F.A. did not. A.A. testified that her

father frequently used physical forms of punishment when they broke his rules.

A.A. testified there were a lot of house rules and it was hard to know what was

expected of them at any given time because "even if [they] did something that

[F.A.] didn't like, but he didn't explicitly tell [them] not to, it would suddenly

like become like a rule."

                                                                           A-0927-22
                                       10
      During A.A.'s testimony, the judge sustained DCPP’s objection to

questioning by F.A.'s counsel as to whether C.A.'s beating was punishment for

breaking the house rules as follows:

            [F.A.'s COUNSEL]: Your Honor . . . I'm asking
            questions as to whether or not they believe there was a
            rule broken in the house.

            THE COURT: What does it matter what she believes?
            She's already testified that she knew that there were
            rules and sometimes they were different each day and—
            it depended upon [F.A.'s] mood.

            [F.A.'s COUNSEL]: . . . I'm trying to ask questions
            about the specific event that occurred that night . . . .
            So, I'm just trying to . . . ask the witness if she believes
            on that particular night . . . that rule [was broken.]

            THE COURT: Yeah, I'm not going to allow you to do
            that. It doesn't matter what she believes. The objection
            is sustained. Move on.

            ....

            [F.A.'s COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I would just argue to
            the contrary. I believe it is relevant. It is relevant[.]

            THE COURT: Why?

            ....

            [F.A.'s COUNSEL]: The relevance is because if she
            believes the house rules were broken, then there may
            have . . . been a basis for the discipline in this case?

            THE COURT: Being hit by a belt?

                                                                           A-0927-22
                                        11
            [F.A.'s COUNSEL]: The . . . discipline in this case is
            what is at issue in this case. And, so the discipline has
            levels, and that is essentially what I'm trying to get
            testimony in regards to, whether or not there was
            discipline in this case. And, then argue as to the level
            of the discipline, as to whether or not it rises to the level
            of risk of harm to the children. That is what I'm trying
            to get at with these questions.

            THE COURT: Well, first of all, the use of the word
            discipline is your word. . . . That's not a word that is a
            legal definition of what is alleged to have happened that
            night. All right. What this child believes about what
            the type of discipline that was going to be administered
            to her that night because she was on the phone . . . or
            whatever, has no relevance as to whether or not your
            client abused or neglected this child. The objection is
            sustained. Move on.

      A.A. and C.A. both testified that the February 2021 incident was not the

first time F.A. had punished them by physical force.           Being forced to do

strenuous physical exercises and being hit with a belt were common methods of

F.A.'s discipline. C.A. testified that she had been hit with the same belt used in

this incident "a couple times" before. Further, she explained the belt used for

discipline was a "military belt," meaning that it was "not really leathery," but

rather "really hard . . . harder than a leather belt," so "[i]t hurt[] more." C.A.

had last been hit about a month prior to this incident, and in the past she had

been kicked and choked until she was unconscious. She also testified F.A. had

previously "hit [C.A.] and [her] sister with a belt" as punishment for having a

                                                                            A-0927-22
                                        12
convenience store bag in their room. On that occasion, F.A. threw "everything

out of [the] room in the front of the staircase," and "hit [them] with the belt a

few times."

      A.A. testified several months prior to the February 2021 incident, F.A.

saw she had a photo of herself in a tank-top on her phone and learned that she

had been texting during class. F.A. was angry about this and struck her on the

bridge of her nose with her phone. Her nose was bruised and she felt "light -

headed," so her father made her stand in the snow so she would not faint. She

also testified that F.A. had previously threatened to "slam [their] head[s] through

a wall" and used a dog leash to beat them. A.A. was not sure how many times

her father had hit her in total but when she was hit to the point she thought she

may pass out, her father would give her water and instruct her not to tell anyone

else about the abuse.

      B.A. did not testify at trial. However, she told DCPP and Dr. Lanese that

she had been beaten by her father previously to the extent it hurt to sit down.

DCPP's report recording B.A.'s statement is in the record before us.

      At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge rendered an oral decision. The

judge accepted the testimony of Dr. Lanese as credible. Although C.A. stated

                                                                            A-0927-22
                                       13
she had "kind of suppressed [her] memories" of the incident, the judge found

that her testimony was credible, as was A.A.'s:

            I find these witnesses to be credible. It was striking to
            this court to watch them. It was on a video, but I could
            see them. I could hear them. I watched their demeanor
            throughout their testimony. . . . I'll [consider A.A.'s
            testimony] first.

            . . . . Her testimony had a ring of truth to it. She was
            consistent in her testimony today from what she told
            Dr. Lanese and what she told the [DCPP] worker . . .
            about what happened to her and . . . what happened to
            [C.A.]. . . .

      The judge further found that A.A.'s testimony substantiated a pattern of

behavior common to much of the abuse F.A. inflicted. F.A. would take his

daughters into the basement where "no one will hear the screams," instruct the

girls not to tell others about the abuse, and offer them water or ice to prevent

them from passing out after he beat them.     Additionally, the judge found that

A.A. had no motivation to testify untruthfully. Although there were moments

when A.A. seemed "upset," the judge determined her responses were

"appropriate," "consistent," and "direct."

      The judge similarly found C.A.'s testimony credible. The level of detail

provided by C.A. gave the court insight into the situation as if the judge were

"in the same room as her" at the time of the incident as follows:

                                                                         A-0927-22
                                       14
             When she was describing, she said doing the crab walk.
             Like she was on her hands, on her feet, walking
             backwards to the point where furniture was upended
             and the rug . . . became in disarray, because later on he
             told her to clean it up. And, the reason why the living
             room was in disarray, is because she was backing up, a
             crab walk trying to get away from him, as he's swinging
             a belt at her.

      Additionally, the judge noted that C.A.'s description of the belt F.A. used

to beat her as "military" style indicated that it was a belt she was familiar with

from prior abuse. C.A.'s testimony was consistent that A.A.'s, and the judge

found that at the time of the incident, C.A. "needed to stop [the abuse] in some

way" because "she was afraid her father was going to kill her." Specifically, the

judge noted that C.A. did remember the details of the abuse, but found it painful

to attempt to recall the incidences, setting forth:

             [T]he terror that these children have been [subjected to]
             for years and years is evident to this [c]ourt. Because,
             they were able to recall specifics, and – and the way
             they talked about it, it was almost in a . . . nonchalant
             way. It was so common . . . but this night was different.
             And this night [this court] got the impression from
             [C.A.] that she had had enough. And, she was even
             willing to get her sister [A.A.] in trouble by ratting her
             out about the social media just so she would not be
             killed by her father. And when he was choking her with
             both of her hands, and she said she couldn't breath[e],
             and he said he was going to kill her, that is when
             everything got extra real for [C.A.].

             ....

                                                                           A-0927-22
                                        15
            . . . And it's clear to this [c]ourt that [DCPP] has proven
            by more than a preponderance of the evidence, but the
            standard is preponderance of the evidence, that [F.A.]
            has abused and neglected these children. . . .

            This is clearly, clearly excessive corporal punishment.
            To the point where you're beating your children with a
            belt, where you're slapping them, where you're choking
            them, and saying I'm going to kill you while you're
            choking them with both of your hands, while you're on
            top of [your] then I believe fifteen[-]year[-]old
            daughter is unconscionable. And this . . . case is so
            clear . . . with all of the evidence that's been presented
            . . . but most importantly with . . . the credible testimony
            of these children.

            So, for all of those reasons I do find a Title 9 against
            [F.A.]. [DCPP] has sustained its burden of proof.

The same day, the judge entered an order memorializing its finding that F.A.

abused or neglected his daughters through excessive corporal punishment.

      The judge conducted three compliance review hearings thereafter. R.S.

filed a custody application in North Carolina and venue was transferred to North

Carolina, where R.S. resided. R.S. was granted full custody of C.A. and B.A.

      On October 12, 2022, the judge held a final hearing to dismiss the

litigation as resolved at the request of DCPP, which was unopposed. Custody of

C.A. and B.A. remained with R.S. 4 This appeal followed.

4
  As A.A. had turned eighteen during the pendency of the DCPP case, she was
no longer a minor subject to the custody determinations of the court.
                                                                           A-0927-22
                                       16
                                            II.

      On appeal, F.A. argues the judge's finding of abuse or neglect is

unsupported by the evidentiary record. He asserts that C.A.'s testimony should

not have been viewed as credible because she stated her memories of the

February 2021 incident had been suppressed. F.A. further contends that the

judge erred by not allowing his counsel to question his daughters as to whether

they had broken the house rules through their use of electronic devices and social

media. He argues that on the night in question, he was merely disciplining his

daughters, therefore the judge improperly imputed harm to his daughters despite

the sporadic and justified nature of his punishments.

      Our review of the judge's finding of abuse or neglect is guided by well-

established principles. "[W]e accord substantial deference and defer to the

factual findings of the Judge if they are sustained by 'adequate, substantial, and

credible evidence' in the record." N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v.

N.B., 452 N.J. Super. 513, 521 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth &

Fam. Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014)). "Indeed, we recognize that

'[b]ecause of the [F]amily [Part's] special jurisdiction and expertise in family

matters, [we] should accord deference to family court factfinding.'" N.J. Div.

                                                                           A-0927-22
                                       17
of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328, 343 (2010) (first alteration in

original) (quoting Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998)).

      However, we owe no deference to the judge's legal conclusions, such as

the determination that a parent has abused or neglected their child under Title 9,

which we review de novo. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.B., 231 N.J.

354, 369 (2017). "[DCPP] bears the burden of proof at a fact-finding hearing

and must prove . . . harm . . . by a preponderance of the evidence." N.J. Dep't.

of Child. & Fams., Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1, 22 (2013)

(citing N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(b)). DCPP must sustain that burden "through the

admission of 'competent, material and relevant evidence.'" N.J. Div. of Youth

& Fam. Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17, 32 (2011) (quoting N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(b)).

In making a determination of abuse or neglect, the trial court should base its

decision on the totality of the circumstances. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs.

v. V.T., 423 N.J. Super. 320, 329 (App. Div. 2011).

      "Title 9 controls the adjudication of abuse and neglect cases,” M.C. III,

201 N.J. at 343 (citing N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.73), and was enacted "to protect

children 'from acts or conditions which threaten their welfare.'" G.S. v. Dep't of

Hum. Servs., Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs., 157 N.J. 161, 176 (1999) (quoting

                                                                           A-0927-22
                                       18
State v. Demarest, 252 N.J. Super. 323, 330 (App. Div. 1991)). Under Title 9,

an

            "[a]bused or neglected child" means a child less than
            [eighteen] years of age whose parent or guardian . . .
            (1) inflicts or allows to be inflicted upon such child
            physical injury by other than accidental means which
            causes or creates a substantial risk of death, or serious
            or protracted disfigurement, or protracted impairment
            of physical or emotional health or protracted loss or
            impairment of the function of any bodily organ . . . (4)
            or 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
            parent or guardian, as herein defined, to exercise a
            minimum degree of care . . . (b) 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) (emphases added).]

      Parental rights include the right to take reasonable measures in

disciplining a child, including corporal punishment. N.J. Dep't of Child &

Fams., Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. K.A., 413 N.J. Super. 504, 510 (App.

Div. 2010) (citing State v. T.C., 347 N.J. Super. 219, 239-40 (App. Div. 2002)).

The law does not clearly define what constitutes "excessive corporal

punishment" because "[a]buse and neglect cases are generally fact sensitive.

                                                                         A-0927-22
                                       19
Each case requires careful, individual scrutiny." P.W.R., 205 N.J. at 33. Proof

of any injuries sustained by the child that are "of such a nature as would

ordinarily not . . . exist except by reason of the acts or omissions of the parent

or guardian" is prima facie evidence of abuse or neglect.          N.J.S.A. 9:6-

8.46(a)(2).

      While "moderate correction" may be reasonable, "a single incident of

violence against a child may be sufficient to constitute excessive corporal

punishment." K.A., 413 N.J. Super. at 510, 511. Excessive corporal punishment

may occur when "the child suffers a fracture of a limb, or a serious laceration,

or any other event where medical intervention proves to be necessary . . .

provided that the parent or caregiver could have foreseen, under all of the

attendant circumstances, that such harm could result from the punishment

inflicted." Id. at 511 (citation omitted); see also N.J.A.C. 10:129-2.2(a)(9)

(listing "[c]uts, bruises, abrasions, welts or oral injuries" as injuries that may

constitute abuse or neglect).

                                            III.

      We begin by addressing F.A.'s contention the judge improperly found

C.A.'s testimony credible despite her admission she had suppressed her memory

of the February 2021 incident. F.A.'s argument as to this issue stems from C.A.'s

                                                                           A-0927-22
                                       20
response to a question on direct examination asking about the order of events

when A.A. came downstairs. In response to that question, C.A. testified: "I'm

not sure. Like this is a long time ago and I kind of really suppressed my

memories. So, I'm not really sure what happened." However, when she was

questioned further on cross examination as to whether "by saying [she was]

suppressing, does that mean [she did not] remember everything that happened."

C.A. responded: "No, just—I don't want to remember what happened."

      The judge specifically addressed this issue and found C.A.'s testimony

credible, setting forth as follows:

            When [C.A.] testified about suppressing the thoughts,
            it was so obvious to me—and she said it, she said it's
            not that I don't remember what happened, it's that I don't
            want to remember. Well, of course she doesn't . . . want
            to remember. She's a sixteen[-]year[-]old girl who's
            been putting up with these beating[s], as she called
            them, when he beats me, for years, and years, and years.

      We "generally defer to the trial court's credibility determinations because

the trial   judge   'has the opportunity to make first-hand credibility

determinations about the witnesses who appear on the stand' and thus 'has a "feel

of the case" that can never be realized by a review of the cold record.'" N.J. Div.

of Child Prot. & Permanency v. T.D., 454 N.J. Super. 353, 379 (App. Div. 2018)

(N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008)). F.A. has

                                                                            A-0927-22
                                       21
proffered no case law to support his contention that we should disregard the

judge's credibility determination regarding C.A.'s testimony, and we otherwise

decline to do so. We add only that C.A. succinctly explained by using the term

"suppressed" she found it painful and unpleasant to recall the details of her

abuse, rather than being unable to remember.

                                               IV.

      Next, we consider F.A.'s assertion the judge incorrectly ruled that

testimony from A.A. or C.A. as to whether they believed F.A.'s house rules had

been broken on the night of the February 7, 2021 incident was not relevant. The

judge sustained the objection to this line of questioning and set forth: "What

this child believes about what the type of discipline that was going to be

administered to her that night . . . has no relevance as to whether or not your

client abused or neglected this child."

      "As a general rule with respect to the exclusion or admission of evidence,

we afford '[c]onsiderable latitude . . . [to a] trial court in determining whether to

admit evidence, and that determination will be reversed only if it constitutes an

abuse of discretion.'" N.B., 452 N.J. Super. at 521 (alterations in original)

(quoting N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. N.T., 445 N.J. Super. 478,

492 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368, 385 (2015))).

                                                                              A-0927-22
                                          22
Pursuant to N.J.R.E. 402, all "relevant" evidence and testimony is presumed to

be admissible at trial unless it is precluded by statute, Rule of Court or

evidentiary standard. Evidence or testimony is considered "relevant" if it "ha[s]

a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the

determination of the action." N.J.R.E. 401.

      F.A. asserts that A.A.'s testimony regarding whether C.A. was whipped

with a belt and choked as punishment for breaking house rules is relevant under

N.J.R.E. 401. F.A. contends this testimony would have bolstered his defense

that the incidents leading to his arrest were part of reasonable discipline given

his desire to keep his daughters from being exposed to dangers on the internet.

Therefore, the testimony should have been admitted.

      Because "[t]he law does not prohibit the use of corporal punishment," F.A.

argues that this line of questioning is highly relevant to determining if his actions

constituted abuse. T.C., 347 N.J. Super. at 239-40. New Jersey law "prohibits

the infliction of excessive corporal punishment," but not non-excessive corporal

punishment used as a means of discipline. Ibid. (emphasis added). "The general

proposition is that a parent may inflict moderate correction such as is reasonable

under the circumstances of a case." Ibid. (emphases added).

                                                                              A-0927-22
                                        23
      Accordingly, in order for us to be persuaded by F.A.'s contention that

testimony as to breaking house rules would have been relevant to the judge's

fact-finding, we must determine there is any set of circumstances which would

render a father choking and beating his daughters with a belt to be a reasonable

form of punishment. F.A. proffers no case law to support such a conclusion .

We are otherwise unconvinced.

      In K.A., we concluded that the defendant mother, who punched her eight-

year-old child with autism approximately four to five times in the shoulder after

the child failed to follow directions, had not inflicted excessive corporal

punishment under Title 9. 413 N.J. Super. at 506, 512. We found the defendant's

actions were isolated and occurred during "the trying circumstances which [the

defendant] was undergoing due to [the child's] psychological disorder." Ibid.

The defendant showed remorse and took responsibility for her actions. "Out of

sheer frustration, or through an ill-advised impulse, she struck her child five

times. These blows, though undoubtedly painful, did not cause the child any

permanent harm, did not require medical intervention of any kind, and were not

part of a pattern of abuse."

      We find the present matter distinguishable from K.A. F.A. maintained

that he exercised appropriate discretion in the punishment he inflicted on his

                                                                          A-0927-22
                                      24
daughters and has shown no remorse for his actions. Moreover, the credible

testimony in the record established that F.A.'s actions on February 7, 2021 were

not the result of heat-of-the-moment impulse, but rather part of a sustained

pattern of inflicting serious physical abuse on his daughters under the guise of

discipline. The judge set forth:

            [A.A.] is a child who is testifying about . . . how often
            . . . she had been abused by her father to the point where
            they all kind of knew what the deal was and what the
            drill was. [He] take[s] you into the basement, you can't
            be heard. [He] [g]ive[s] you ice or water so you don't
            pass out. [He] [h]it[s] you in a place where the bruises
            won't show. . . . [A.A.] knew that her sister was getting
            ready to be hit by a belt, because she had heard that
            sound before.

      Accordingly, we find no error in the judge's evidential ruling. There is no

basis for us to conclude that testimony regarding the act that allegedly led to the

punishment would have been relevant to determining if F.A.'s methods of

corporal punishment were reasonable under the circumstance. F.A.'s actions on

February 7, 2021 were undoubtedly excessive corporal punishment that could

not be justified under any factual scenario as a reasonable repercussion for a

minor's use of an electronic device.

                                                                            A-0927-22
                                       25
                                            V.

      We briefly address F.A.'s remaining arguments. First, F.A. contends the

judge did not sufficiently consider that the February 2021 incident was isolated

and not part of a repeated pattern of abuse. The record does not support this

assertion and, instead, establishes F.A.'s continued abuse of the children for

years. Moreover, in New Jersey, "a single incident of violence against a child

may be sufficient to constitute excessive corporal punishment." K.A., 413 N.J.

Super. at 511. Even leaving aside the evidence of continued abuse over a period

of years, the record substantiates that F.A. choked his daughter until she was

unable to breathe and beat two of his daughters with a belt over the course of

several hours on February 7, 2021.

      Finally, FA. argues the judge improperly presumed there had been harm

done to his daughters based on their testimony. While it is true that in making

a finding of abuse or neglect, the court "must avoid resort to categorical

conclusions," this standard is applicable only when the child has not suffered

"actual harm." Dep't of Children & Families, Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency

v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166, 180-81 (2015).

            Title 9 initially looks for actual impairment to the child.
            However, when there is no evidence of actual harm, the
            focus shifts to whether there is a threat of harm. Thus,
            a finding of abuse and neglect can be based on proof of

                                                                          A-0927-22
                                       26
            imminent danger and a substantial risk of harm. Under
            those circumstances, [DCPP] must show imminent
            danger or a substantial risk of harm to a child by a
            preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, [c]ourts
            need not wait to act until a child is actually irreparably
            impaired by parental inattention or neglect.

            [Id. at 178 (first and third alterations in original)
            (citations and quotations omitted).]

      At minimum, F.A.'s beating on February 7, 2021 caused C.A.'s eye to

swell shut and A.A. had belt marks across her lower back. There was evidence

of actual harm on prior occasions in that B.A. had previously been beaten to the

point that it hurt to sit down, at the very least. We see no merit to F.A.'s

argument that DCPP did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence his

daughters suffered actual harm as a result of his actions.

      We find no error in the judge's conclusion that, under the totality of the

circumstances, F.A. abused or neglected A.A., C.A., and B.A., under Title 9. To

the extent we have not already addressed them, any additional arguments F.A.

raises on appeal lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                         A-0927-22
                                       27