DCPP VS. J.J. AND A.C.IN THE MATTER OF J.J. AND N.J.(FN-02-0215-14, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED), A-0583-15T2/A-0584-15T2

Parents Alice (mother) and James (father) have two young children (born 2010 and 2011) and a long history of Division involvement for domestic violence and substance abuse.
January–March 2014: domestic altercation leading to Alice's arrest; police records showed multiple prior domestic-violence investigations, some with children present.
James had an ongoing crack-cocaine and alcohol problem; he tested positive for cocaine in Feb. 2014 and later entered inpatient treatment but was described as high risk for relapse.
The Division implemented a safety protection plan (signed by both parents) and a court order restricting parental contact with the children; both parents twice violated the plan/order by allowing James unsupervised access to the children in the home.
Division removed the children in late March 2014 and sought custody; a fact-finding hearing followed where Division witnesses testified and the parents did not testify or present witnesses.
The Family Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that both parents abused or neglected the children by exposing them to substantial risk of harm from domestic violence, James’s substance abuse, and violations of the safety plan; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial credible evidence supported findings of abuse/neglect based on domestic violence, substance abuse, and safety-plan violations	Division: evidence showed ongoing severe domestic violence (children present), James’s substance abuse, and parents’ willful violations of safety plan creating substantial risk	Parents: insufficient evidence that domestic violence or James’s substance abuse posed imminent or substantial risk to children	Held: Affirmed — trial court’s factual findings were supported by substantial credible evidence and totality of circumstances showed substantial risk of harm
Whether the trial court improperly shifted the burden of persuasion to the parents	Division: met its burden by preponderance; any reference to burden-shifting was about parents’ failure to present evidence	James: court shifted burden to parents to rebut presumption of abuse/neglect	Held: No improper shift — record shows Division proved risk by a preponderance; court’s reference to burden shifting was contextual and did not change burden of proof

G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (explains "minimum degree of care," gross negligence, and willful/wanton conduct in child-protection context)
D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232 (2012) (appellate review: de novo for legal issues; no special deference to trial court legal conclusions)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (standards for appellate review of factual findings in DYFS/Division cases)
Dep’t of Children & Families v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 (2011) (grossly negligent or reckless parental conduct can support inference of future danger)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. S.S., 372 N.J. Super. 13 (App. Div.) (2004) (preponderance standard requires probability of present or future harm)
V.T. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 423 N.J. Super. 320 (App. Div.) (2011) (Title 9 cases are fact-sensitive; courts consider totality of circumstances)