NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Part entered an order on June 24, 2013 determining that defendant K.F. (Kate)1 abused or neglected two of her children by placing them at a substantial risk of harm through her excessive alcohol consumption. Kate now appeals from that order and we affirm.
Kate is the mother of three children, L.A.R. (Lindsay), L.R. (Lois), and T.F. (Terry). J.R. (Joseph) is married to Kate and is the father of the three children. At the time of this incident, Lindsay was thirteen, Lois was eleven, and Terry, who is not involved in this appeal, was older with a child of her own.
The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) first became involved with this family in October 2011 after receiving a referral reporting allegations of neglect of Lindsay and Lois. A Division caseworker responded and learned that on September 11, 2011, local police were called to the home after a physical altercation between Kate and Terry. Lindsay and Lois were present during the incident, and it was reported that Kate was abusing alcohol. Kate was admitted to Seabrook House for inpatient substance abuse treatment in January 2012, and the Division closed the case the following month without any substantiation of abuse or neglect.
The Division received a second referral of a domestic dispute at Kate's home on September 11, 2012, and caseworker Brandy Nunez was dispatched to investigate. Nunez testified that she was met by Kate at the door and described her as "groggy," "disheveled," and under the influence of a substance. Kate had bloodstains on her shirt and told Nunez she had injured herself. After interviewing other family members, Nunez learned of a violent incident the previous day.
Kate began drinking wine and beer during the afternoon and then fell asleep. When she woke up, she entered the kitchen where Terry was preparing to bathe her eighteen-month-old child. Kate banged on the kitchen table and then flipped it over, splitting it in half. Kate and Terry began to argue, and as Joseph entered the kitchen, Kate swung at him. Joseph grabbed Kate to prevent her from harming anyone. When Terry tried to leave with her son, Kate followed her outside and tried to grab her. At that point, Kate's mother, K.F. (Nanna), arrived. Kate went back inside and tried to lock Nanna out of the home, but Nanna was able to enter. When Kate began to yell and "go after" Lois, Nanna intervened and wrestled Kate to the floor to protect the child. Both children were involved in the scrum, and Lois ended up on the bottom of the pile. At some point, Kate struck or slapped Lois in the face. Although not seriously injured, Lois sustained an abrasion to the underside of her left arm during the tussle. Both Lindsay and Lois told the caseworker that they feared their mother when she drank to excess, which occurred regularly.
Corporal James J. Loomis, of the West Deptford Police Department, testified that he responded to the home at the request of caseworker Nunez, who expressed concerns about Kate's belligerent attitude and condition. Loomis described Kate as unsteady on her feet and staggering.
The court found that the Division established by a preponderance of the evidence that Kate not only subjected Lindsay and Lois to harm, but they were actually harmed as a result of her actions. On appeal, Kate challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting this determination:
POINT ONE
THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT AGAINST K.F.
A. THE DIVISION FAILED TO PROVE THAT K.F. WAS RECKLESS WHEN CAUSING INJURY TO HER CHILDREN.
B. THE DIVISION FAILED TO PROVE THAT K.F. NEGLECTED HER CHILDREN BY BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.
"The Division bears the burden of proof at a fact-finding hearing and must prove present or future harm to a child by a preponderance of the evidence." N.J. Dept. of Children & Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1, 22 (2013) (citing N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(b)). Our scope of review of the Family Part's decision is limited to "whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on substantial credible evidence present in the record when considering the proofs as a whole, giving due regard to the opportunity of the trial judge to determine credibility." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.G., 344 N.J.Super. 418, 442-43 (App. Div. 2001) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)), certif. denied, 171 N.J. 44 (2002). We accord special deference to the Family Part because of its "expertise in family matters[.]" Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998).
Title Nine is intended to protect children from circumstances and actions that threaten their welfare. G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161, 176 (1999). A parent's conduct must be evaluated in context based on the risks posed by the situation. Id. at 181-82.
Kate's first argument is that the trial court erred in concluding that she recklessly caused the injury to Lois during the pile-up on the kitchen floor. Failure to exercise a minimum degree of care "at least requires grossly negligent or reckless conduct." Dep't of Children & Families v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294, 306 (2011). Kate's abuse of alcohol was not disputed. After the first Division referral in 2011, she entered a facility for inpatient substance abuse treatment in January 2012. On the day of the incident, she consumed a large bottle of wine along with some beer. Unfortunately, this behavior was not atypical, and the evidence established that Kate drank to excess on a regular basis. The two younger children feared Kate's violent and unpredictable outbursts when she drank.
Kate's action in flipping the kitchen table over as Terry was preparing to bathe her young child was followed by her attack on Terry, Joseph, and Lois in a fit of drunken rage. Lois was injured, albeit slightly, while Nanna was attempting to subdue Kate and protect the children. To underscore the court's findings, Kate continued to drink the day after the incident and was under the influence, uncooperative, and belligerent when Nunez visited to investigate the referral.
Kate's intentional action in drinking to excess, followed by her violent behavior, placed her children at risk of harm and supports the Division's contention that they were abused or neglected within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c).
The other argument presented by Kate lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in our written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
