DCPP VS. J.A., S.M., J.B., AND A.W., IN THE MATTER OF S.J.B., J.A. AND N.A. (FN-07-0201-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0877-19

On November 17, 2017, four-year-old S.J.B. (Sarah) was admitted in a medically induced coma with significant head trauma after being at home with Jared, her mother’s boyfriend and primary caretaker that evening.
Medical imaging and exams showed bilateral subdural hemorrhages, intraventricular bleeding, a brain contusion with left-sided motor impairment, multilayer peripheral retinal hemorrhages, elevated liver/pancreatic enzymes, a healing left ninth rib fracture, and abdominal trauma.
Sarah later told investigators and, in a forensic interview, that Jared hit and shook her and told her to be quiet; she did not recall falling in a bathtub as Jared had asserted.
Division experts (Drs. Medina and Kairys) diagnosed abusive head trauma caused by shaking/impact; defense experts disputed causation and suggested alternative explanations but did not identify a plausible accidental mechanism supported by the total record.
The Family Part judge credited the Division’s experts and Investigator Howell, found Jared abused/neglected Sarah under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(1) and (4)(b), and entered findings (June 25, 2018) and termination of litigation (Sept. 13, 2019). The Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility & weight of expert testimony	Experts’ opinions were based on medical records, imaging, lab results and standard methodologies and supported abuse finding	Defense argued Division experts exceeded expertise, relied on selective data, and misapplied science (e.g., ignored Griseofulvin effects)	Court upheld admissibility and weight; deferential to trial judge’s credibility findings and expert qualifications
Sufficiency to prove abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(1) and (4)(b)	Division proved non-accidental injuries and lack of plausible accidental explanation while Jared was sole caretaker	Jared claimed bathtub fall or medical causes could explain injuries	Preponderance of competent, credible evidence supports finding of abuse/neglect; affirmed
Use and corroboration of child’s out-of-court statements/forensic interview	Child’s statements corroborated by medical findings and thus admissible and probative	Defense questioned reliability of child’s interview and urged exclusion / diminished weight	Court found statements sufficiently corroborated and properly admitted; trial court did not abuse discretion
Conflict among experts (need to reconcile)	Division argued totality of evidence and credible experts established causation	Jared argued conflicting expert views left causation unresolved and required reversal	Court deferred to trial judge’s resolution of conflicts; factual findings not clearly mistaken and affirmed

N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (abuse-and-neglect proceedings are fact-sensitive)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (burden of proof and admissibility of expert/scientific testimony)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (2011) (need for competent, material, relevant evidence)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to Family Part’s special jurisdiction and expertise)
State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473 (2006) (standards for admissibility and reliability of expert testimony)
State v. Jenewicz, 193 N.J. 440 (2008) (weight of expert opinion limited by underlying facts and reasoning)
State v. M.J.K., 369 N.J. Super. 532 (App. Div. 2004) (factfinder may accept part of an expert’s testimony and reject the rest)