DCPP VS. C.F. AND M.L., IN THE MATTER OF J.F.-L. (FN-16-0103-19, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1550-19

M.L. (defendant) and C.F. (mother) had a twelve-day-old son, J.F.-L. (Josh); incident occurred Nov. 21–22, 2018 in mother's apartment.
Defendant called police around 2:51 a.m. reporting Cindy was "acting disorderly" and a danger to herself and the baby; police forced entry and found Cindy intoxicated with cuts on her wrists and a knife present.
Defendant said he locked himself in Cindy's bedroom, exited via a window, and left Josh in a baby swing in the kitchen during the dispute; Mike (a third person) was also in the apartment.
Division investigators interviewed parties and summarized events in reports; a Division intake worker identified those documents at the fact-finding hearing.
The Family Part judge found both parents acted with willful, wanton disregard and specifically found M.L. inadequately supervised Josh by leaving him in the swing while Cindy was in crisis with a knife; the Division substantiated neglect and placed M.L. on the Child Abuse Registry.
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding the Division failed to prove M.L. acted with the requisite gross negligence or recklessness and ordered his removal from the Registry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility/competency of documentary evidence used at fact-finding	Division: reports are admissible as business records under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(3)	M.L.: intake witness lacked personal knowledge; much was hearsay	Court: no reversible error—defense lodged few objections, judge ruled on objections; not grounds for reversal
Whether M.L.'s conduct amounted to abuse/neglect by failing to exercise "minimum degree of care" (gross negligence/recklessness) by leaving Josh in swing near intoxicated mother with a knife	Division: M.L. left infant in swing while aware Cindy was intoxicated and dangerous, exposing child to imminent substantial risk	M.L.: he locked himself in bedroom for safety, called police; Mike was present and could have ensured child safety; no actual harm or proof of gross negligence	Court: reversed—Division failed to prove gross negligence or recklessness; judge did not account for surrounding circumstances (defendant's fear, Mike's presence); directed removal from Registry

N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. Y.N., 220 N.J. 165 (discusses "minimum degree of care" as gross negligence or recklessness)
Dep't of Child. & Families, Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 (failure to take a cautionary act insufficient unless grossly negligent)
In re E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (when no actual harm, focus shifts to imminent danger/substantial risk)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (burden to show imminent danger or substantial risk by preponderance when no actual harm)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. A.B., 231 N.J. 354 (must account for surrounding circumstances in minimum-care analysis)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (appellate standard of review for family court factfinding)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (deference to family court factfinding)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (expanded review where judge's evaluation of facts/legal implications are disputed)