NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. IN THE MATTER OF JR (2011)

Defendant H.M. appeals from an order entered following a fact-finding hearing in which the trial court found that she abused or neglected her daughter, Hanna,³ by failing to provide her with proper supervision and exposing her to harm or substantial risk of harm.   We conclude that the trial court's findings are supported by substantial credible evidence, and its conclusions predicated on those findings are legally sound.   Therefore we affirm.

On appeal, H.M. presents the following arguments:

POINT I

THE FINDING OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT AS TO DEFENDANT–APPELLANT MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT MISCHARACTERIZED THE EVIDENCE AND THE TIME LINE, AND ASSUMED FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

POINT II

THE FINDING THAT THE CHILD IS ABUSED AND NEGLECTED AS DEFINED BY THE STATUTE MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE DIVISION DID NOT PROVE THAT THE MOTHER FAILED TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM DEGREE OF CARE.

We have carefully considered these arguments in light of the record, the briefs, and the applicable legal principles, and we conclude that they are without sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion.   R. 2:11–3(e)(1)(E).   We add only the following comments.

In August 2007, H.M. reported concerns to her psychologist about her paramour, C.P., because he had made inappropriate comments to Hanna.   H.M. also reported that she had developed a protection plan for her daughter that called for C.P. not to be alone with Hanna and required that all doors in their home be open at all times.   H.M. also began sleeping with Hanna.   Based upon its investigation, the Division of Youth and Family Services (Division) initiated a safety protection plan on August 23, 2007, which provided that C.P. would not supervise or care for Hanna.   Defendant agreed to the plan.

On September 28, 2009, the Division received a referral from Hanna's biological father, D.M., reporting that C.P. had once again engaged in inappropriate behavior with Hanna.   The matter was investigated, resulting in charges being lodged against the paramour and his subsequent arrest.   In finding that the Division had sustained the charge of abuse or neglect by H.M., the court found that she:  (1) violated the Division's safety protection plan, as well as her own safety protection plan;  (2) took a dismissive position toward both her daughter and her daughter's friend when they complained about C.P. again and expressed that they were afraid to be alone with C.P. and felt uncomfortable around him;  and (3) continued to allow Hanna to be alone with C.P., notwithstanding his prior admissions to her regarding his inappropriate behavior towards Hanna.

The scope of our review of a Family Part judge's factual findings is limited.  N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 278 (2007).   Those findings may not be disturbed unless they are “ ‘so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.’ ”  Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974) (quoting Fagliarone v. Twp. of No. Bergen, 78 N.J.Super. 154, 155 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 40 N.J. 221 (1963));  see also N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494, 511 (2004).  “A reviewing court should uphold the factual findings undergirding the trial court's decision if they are supported by ‘adequate, substantial and credible evidence’ on the record.”  M.M., supra, 189 N.J. at 279 (quoting In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J.Super. 172, 188 (App.Div.1993)).   Moreover, as a general rule, we should also defer to the judge's credibility determinations.  Ibid. Such deference is appropriate because the trial judge has a feel for the case and “the opportunity to make first-hand credibility judgments about the witnesses who appear on the stand․  “ N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008);  see also M.M., supra, 189 N.J. at 293.

Our review of the record convinces us that the judge's decision finding abuse or neglect was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record and we find no basis to disturb those findings or the judge's application of the law to those factual findings.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN3. Hanna is a fictitious name..  FN3. Hanna is a fictitious name.

PER CURIAM