DCPP VS. E.W. AND R.A.IN THE MATTER OF B.W.(FN-09-0174-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-5586-15T4

Mother E.W. has long-standing PCP addiction; five of her six children tested positive for PCP at birth and were removed or had parental rights terminated.
Baby B.W. (pseudonym Barbara) was born September 15, 2015, testing positive for PCP; hospital reported the positive test and Division intervened.
Division filed for care, custody, and supervision and executed an emergency removal on September 18, 2015; Division custody continued through the fact-finding hearing.
Division caseworker testified E.W. received ~150 referrals for substance-abuse assessments (attended ~15), repeatedly tested positive for PCP, was discharged from treatment for aggression/noncompliance, and attended visits intoxicated and inattentive.
Trial court found the totality of circumstances (positive test, extensive history of PCP use, noncompliance with services, prior removals/terminations) established that Barbara was at substantial risk of serious harm and that E.W. failed to exercise the minimum degree of care.
Appellate court reviewed for substantial credible evidence and affirmed the finding of abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Division)	Defendant's Argument (E.W.)	Held
Whether a newborn's positive drug test plus mother's history supports finding of abuse/neglect	Totality (positive test + mother’s persistent PCP use, noncompliance, prior child removals) shows substantial risk of harm	A positive test alone, without proof of impairment or harm to child, is insufficient; must show present or future harm	Affirmed: totality, including repetitive conduct and noncompliance, satisfied preponderance to show substantial risk
Whether E.W. failed to exercise the "minimum degree of care" (gross or wanton negligence standard)	E.W.’s repeated intoxication, inability to care for children, aggressive behavior, and failure to engage in treatment show failure to provide minimum care	Mother argues she was never given opportunity to care for the infant and Barbara showed no withdrawal or impairment	Affirmed: evidence supported that mother’s conduct and history created a substantial risk and demonstrated failure to exercise minimum care
Whether the Division relied impermissibly on past conduct rather than imminent risk	Division contends past conduct is relevant to show ongoing risk and future danger to infant	E.W. contends reliance on past history without present impairment is legally insufficient	Affirmed: court properly considered past conduct as part of totality to show future/substantial risk, consistent with precedent

N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Perm. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (Supreme Court) (positive toxicology at birth, without more, does not automatically prove imminent danger; focus on future risk and severity of mother's use)
G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (Supreme Court) ("minimum degree of care" requires more than ordinary negligence; failure to supervise or reckless creation of risk suffices)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (Supreme Court) (deference to family court factfinding in abuse/neglect matters)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. V.T., 423 N.J. Super. 320 (App. Div.) (parental substance use during supervised visits insufficient alone when parent behaved appropriately and child not vulnerable)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (Supreme Court) (appellate deference to trial court findings when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence)