DCPP v. J.B. AND P.W., IN THE MATTER OF S.F. (FN-06-0186-19, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2022 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0228-20
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
J.B.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
P.W.,
Defendant.
_________________________
IN THE MATTER OF
S.F., a minor.
_________________________
Submitted February 8, 2022 – Decided February 22, 2022
Before Judges Fisher and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Cumberland County,
Docket No. FN-06-0186-19.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Catherine Reid, Designated Counsel, on the
briefs).
Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Nicholas Dolinsky, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for minor
(Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender of
counsel; and Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
On June 4, 2019, defendant J.B. gave birth to S.F. (Serena), who was then
admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit because she was born premature and
tested positive for cocaine. While Serena did not immediately suffer from
withdrawal symptoms, she did a few days after her birth and required morphine
to treat the symptoms. Defendant also tested positive for illicit drugs at the time
of Serena's birth and was combative with hospital staff; she was psychiatrically
examined and involuntarily committed.
The hospital contacted the Division of Child Protection & Permanency
and reported the circumstances. About the time Serena was discharged from the
A-0228-20
2
hospital, the Division filed a complaint alleging defendant had abused or
neglected Serena under Title Nine, served defendant with a notice of an
emergency removal of the child, and placed Serena with defendant's mother.
Defendant did not appear on the return date of the initial order to show
cause. After a hearing, the judge granted the Division custody of the child and
ordered defendant to submit to a substance abuse evaluation, psychological and
psychiatric evaluations, and random urine screens.
There followed a few case management conferences, none of which
defendant attended. The Division kept the court advised that defendant was not
engaging in services 1 and had not been in contact with the Division; the Division
also advised it was having difficulty locating defendant. The Division, however,
learned the identity of Serena's father, P.W., and filed an amended complaint
naming him as a defendant. At the Division's request, the court converted the
case to a Title Thirty litigation while reserving the Division's right to pursue its
Title Nine claim.
After a few false starts, the fact-finding hearing was scheduled for January
10, 2020. Defendant appeared and finally filled out the necessary forms for the
1
The Division advised the court that defendant attended a substance abuse
evaluation but was belligerent and did not complete the process. In fact,
defendant then admitted she would test positive for cocaine.
A-0228-20
3
appointment of counsel. The hearing was adjourned so defense counsel could
obtain discovery and become familiar with the matter.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused delays as the courts moved to virtual
hearings. When defense counsel advised she was having difficulty contacting
defendant for an April 2020 hearing, the court rescheduled the hearing again.
The fact-finding hearing finally occurred on June 11, 2020, via remote
teleconferencing. The trial court reached out to defendant at her last known
telephone number but she did not answer and ultimately did not appear for the
hearing. The Division elicited testimony from its witnesses and offered into
evidence various documents and other evidential material. Defense counsel
cross-examined the Division's witnesses but called no witnesses on defendant's
behalf. The trial judge found the Division sustained its claim of abuse or neglect
beyond a preponderance of the evidence and entered an appropriate order
memorializing the findings. The litigation was terminated in August 2020.
Defendant appeals, arguing:
I. THE FAMILY PART ERRED IN ADMITTING
UNCERTIFIED HOSPITAL RECORDS INTO
EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS RELYING UPON THOSE
UNCERTIFIED RECORDS TO CONCLUDE THAT
[THE DIVISION] MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF
AND PRESENTED COMPETENT, MATERIAL AND
RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT [DEFENDANT'S]
DRUG USE RESULTED IN INJURY TO SERENA.
A-0228-20
4
II. EVEN IF THE HOSPITAL RECORDS HAD BEEN
PROPERLY ADMITTED, THE EVIDENCE WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE LEGAL
CONCLUSION THAT SERENA WAS AN ABUSED
AND NEGLECTED CHILD.
III. THE FAMILY PART DENIED [DEFENDANT]
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS WHEN IT
CONCLUDED THAT [DEFENDANT] WAS
PROVIDED CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT
NOTICE OF THE FACT-FINDING TRIAL BASED
ON ONE TEXT MESSAGE AND EMAIL, AND
WHEN IT ASSUMED THIS HOMELESS, INDIGENT
PARENT COULD MEANINGFULLY PARTICIPATE
IN A ZOOM TRIAL DURING A PANDEMIC. THESE
DUE PROCESS CONCERNS WERE MAGNIFIED
BY THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
[DEFENDANT'S] ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND
REQUIRE REVERSAL AND REMAND FOR A NEW
TRIAL.
IV. THE TITLE [NINE] DETERMINATION,
REACHED AFTER A TRIAL BY ZOOM WHEN THE
COURT COULD NOT GET IN TOUCH WITH A
HOMELESS PARENT BY PHONE, SHOULD BE
REVERSED BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS OF
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). In affirming the order under review, we add
only a brief discussion about defendant's Point I arguments about the admission
of evidence and her Point III claim of a due process deprivation.
A-0228-20
5
Defendant argues in Point I that the hospital records offered by the
Division and admitted into evidence were not sufficiently authenticated. We
reject this because defense counsel did not object to the admission of these
records at the hearing. Even if we assume there was something imperfect about
the foundation for the records, defendant deprived the Division of the
opportunity to correct any deficiencies by failing to object at the appropriate
time. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's admission of or reliance
on the hospital records in this circumstance.
We also find no merit in defendant's due process arguments in Point III.
Because the case involves the Division's intrusion into defendant's parental
rights, she was, of course, entitled to procedural due process. See S.C. v. N.J.
Dep't of Children & Families, 242 N.J. 201, 230-34 (2020); N.J. Div. of Youth
& Family Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382, 401-02 (2009); N.J. Div. of Youth &
Family Servs. v. A.R.G., 179 N.J. 264, 285-86 (2004). But there is no question
defendant received all the process that was due.
First, defendant was personally served with a notice of the emergency
removal and of the court proceedings when they were commenced. And she
received notices of all the proceedings that followed. Once defendant was
represented by counsel, her attorney was also given notice or otherwise made
A-0228-20
6
aware of when court proceedings would occur. Even then, the Division did its
best to communicate directly with defendant to ensure her attendance at future
proceedings.
As noted earlier, defendant appeared in court for the adjourned fact-
finding hearing on January 10, 2020; this was when she first applied for the
appointment of counsel. The application was granted and the hearing to occur
that day was adjourned. On the rescheduled date – April 30, 2020 – defendant
did not appear for the video remote hearing and, again, it was adjourned at the
request of defense counsel.
On June 11, 2020, defendant again failed to appear. Her attorney did
appear and the judge decided the time had come to proceed. At that point, the
case was a year old, as was the child. The record contains evidence of the trial
court's attempts to contact defendant by phone prior to the hearing, and the judge
also heard evidence from a Division witness as to the attempts the Division made
to contact defendant to secure her appearance at the hearing.
We find no deprivation of due process in these circumstances. Indeed, we
are satisfied it was enough, in these circumstances, that defense counsel was
advised of the proceedings. Notice to defense counsel was notice to defendant.
A-0228-20
7
Defendant also argues that the conducting of a video-conference hearing
rather than an in-person hearing constitutes a due process deprivation. We
disagree. There may be circumstances about a video-conference hearing – for
example, unexpected technical difficulties that infringe the ability to hear or be
heard or to testify or cross-examine – that might call into question the
sufficiency of the process. But no such argument is made here. The argument is
only that the mere scheduling of a video-conference hearing constitutes a due
process deprivation. To be sure, due process is a flexible concept. Doe v. Poritz,
142 N.J. 1, 106 (1995). But there is nothing about a video-conference hearing
that constitutes a per se due process violation. To the contrary, such hearings
may be conducted without any impairment of the parties' ability to present their
evidence or of the court's ability to understand the factual presentations and
assess the credibility of the witnesses. See Pathri v. Kakarlamath, 462 N.J.
Super. 208 (App. Div. 2020).
Affirmed.
A-0228-20
8