Dcpp v. G.I.M., in the Matter of J.A.M. and Y.F., A-1855-23

The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) had long-standing involvement with G.I.M. ("Grace"), who has six children; only her two youngest, J.A.M. ("Jordan") and Y.F. ("Ynez"), were at issue.
In November 2021, while living temporarily in a hotel, Grace, after an argument with her five-year-old son, threw an object (air fryer/iPad) at a glass balcony door, shattering it, and later left her children alone in the room without removing the glass hazard.
The Division substantiated abuse/neglect based on Grace's failure to remediate the dangerous condition (broken glass), her history of unaddressed mental health and substance abuse problems, and perceived suicidal statements in front of caseworkers and police.
The children were removed from Grace's custody; after a factfinding hearing nearly two years later, the court found that Grace's conduct constituted gross negligence and abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b).
On appeal, Grace argued both factual error (her conduct was merely negligent, not grossly negligent) and legal error (imminent danger was improperly found).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Grace's conduct amounted to gross negligence under Title Nine	Grace's actions were grossly negligent and created a substantial risk of harm	Grace's actions were at most negligent, not grossly negligent	Grace's conduct was grossly negligent and met the statutory standard
Whether actual harm or imminent danger was present	Children need not be actually harmed; imminent risk is enough	No substantial or imminent risk, especially as children unharmed	Risk to children was substantial/imminent; actual harm unnecessary
Appropriateness of considering circumstances/context	Pattern of neglect and failure to remediate hazards justified finding	Her actions must be seen in context of her struggle with housing and support	The context shows knowledge and failure to provide minimum care
Delay in factfinding hearing diminishes urgency	Delay did not impact risk or correctness of finding	Delay showed lack of true urgency or danger	Delay did not undermine finding; danger existed at time of event

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (Appellate review standard for family court factual findings)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (N.J. 1974) (Substantial, credible evidence standard)
G.S. v. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (N.J. 1999) (Definition and application of "gross negligence" under Title Nine)
T.B. v. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs., 207 N.J. 294 (N.J. 2011) (Gross negligence vs. ordinary negligence in Title Nine context)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2013) (Imminent danger and risk of harm under Title Nine)
Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (N.J. 2012) (Family court expertise and appellate deference)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. J.L., 410 N.J. Super. 159 (App. Div. 2009) (Fact-specific analysis for abuse/neglect findings)
N.J. Dep't of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. J.Y., 352 N.J. Super. 245 (App. Div. 2002) (Role of factfinding hearing in abuse/neglect proceedings)