## Facts

- A.R., a sixteen-year-old girl, lived with her father, C.R., and her stepmother, P.W.R., after years living with her paternal grandfather.
- After conflict between the father and grandfather, the father limited A.R.’s contact with the grandfather.
- The grandfather contacted the child-protection agency after A.R. reported that she planned to run away because her stepmother “was slapping her” and the adults were taking some of her part-time earnings.
- During the agency investigation, the father stated the stepmother had slapped A.R. about two years earlier after A.R. skipped school.
- The stepmother admitted requiring A.R. to contribute about $50 per month toward cable and phone and stated the remainder of A.R.’s earnings was being saved.
- A.R. later told the agency the stepmother had a practice of slapping her; the stepmother acknowledged that, at times, she slapped A.R. as punishment.
- A caseworker observed the home was cold and messy; the adults were unemployed and reported an oil-tank problem preventing central heat, using space heaters instead.
- A.R. stayed with an aunt for one night; the agency removed her from the home based on the lack of heat and A.R.’s fear of returning.
- The agency ultimately deemed the physical-abuse allegation unfounded but substantiated neglect based on home safety concerns and A.R.’s fear.
- At the Title 9 fact-finding hearing, evidence included the slapping, the heating conditions, that A.R. had not seen a pediatrician in about two years, and that some of her wages were used for household bills.

## Issues

1. Whether the proven slapping of a sixteen-year-old constituted “excessive corporal punishment” establishing abuse or neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4).
2. Whether lack of central heat with use of space heaters, infrequent pediatric visits, and requiring a modest contribution from the child’s earnings constituted neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4) (failure to exercise a minimum degree of care).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and vacated the Family Part’s Title 9 abuse/neglect finding.
- The court held the agency failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that A.R. was abused or neglected within N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c).
- The court concluded the slapping shown did not rise to “excessive corporal punishment” on this record.
- The court held the heating situation, medical-care history, and partial use of A.R.’s earnings, considered in context, did not show a failure to exercise a minimum degree of care or an imminent danger of impairment.

## Legal Principles

- Title 9 requires proof that a child’s condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of impairment due to a parent’s or guardian’s failure to exercise a “minimum degree of care,” and the agency bears the burden by a preponderance of the evidence.
- “Minimum degree of care” refers to conduct that is grossly or wantonly negligent; ordinary or poverty-related hardship, without more, is insufficient.
- Isolated or relatively moderate corporal punishment, without evidence of serious injury, long-term harm, or severe pattern, ordinarily will not constitute “excessive corporal punishment” under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4).
- Poverty and associated conditions do not establish neglect absent proof that the caregiver was financially able to provide necessities (or was offered reasonable means) and nonetheless acted with gross or wanton disregard creating actual harm or imminent risk.
- A child’s subjective fear may be relevant but does not, standing alone, satisfy Title 9’s objective requirement of harm or imminent substantial risk linked to qualifying caregiver conduct.
- Medical-neglect findings require evidence that needed medical care was withheld and that the child suffered harm or faced imminent risk of impairment from that failure.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the abuse/neglect adjudication because the evidence did not show excessive corporal punishment or a grossly or wantonly negligent failure to provide safe shelter or medical care, and it did not establish actual impairment or imminent risk as required by Title 9.


N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17, 11 A.3d 844 (2011)