DCPP VS. L.L. AND J.N., SR. IN THE MATTER OF B.N., J.N., JR. AND J.N. (FN-12-86-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-2563-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Division removed three sons (ages 12, 9, 4) from mother L.L.'s care after an overnight welfare check on Aug 14, 2014; judge later found neglect for failure to exercise minimum care in supervision.
- Division had earlier open referrals in spring 2014; L.L. underwent substance-abuse evaluation showing positive opiates/morphine and was placed on a Safety Protection Plan (SPP) signed by L.L. and her mother R.L.; SPP required R.L. to supervise the children and L.L. to attend treatment and refrain from abusing prescription meds.
- On Aug 13–14, 2014: R.L. left the home (timing unclear), a caller reported the apartment filthy and no electricity, and Division worker Williams arrived ~2:00 a.m.; she observed a messy apartment, children asleep on a sofa bed, flat affect and slurred speech in L.L., marks on L.L.’s arms, an extension cord supplying power, and water leakage near the cord.
- L.L. had ongoing substance-use problems: positive drug tests (including Aug 14), participation in outpatient/intake at Center for Great Expectations, later detox, but ongoing struggles to obtain/complete inpatient treatment.
- The trial judge credited Division witnesses and found (based on SPP violation, L.L.’s continued substance use, apartment condition, and alleged exposed wires in the sofa bed) that L.L. was grossly negligent and posed a substantial risk of harm to the children; this Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Division) | Defendant's Argument (L.L.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether credible evidence showed the children were in imminent danger or a substantial risk of serious harm under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b) | Division: SPP violation, mother's substance use, deplorable home conditions, exposed sofa-bed wires that injured L.L., and lack of supervision created gross negligence and substantial risk | L.L.: Division failed to show imminent danger or substantial risk of serious bodily, mental, or emotional harm; evidence of danger was speculative and insufficient | Reversed: competent evidence did not establish imminent danger or substantial risk of serious harm; sofa-bed/wire danger unsupported; SPP violation and drug use alone insufficient to prove gross negligence under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Children & Families v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (N.J. 2015) (clarifies that neglect requires actual impairment or imminent/substantial risk of serious harm, and that courts must assess risk carefully rather than rely on conditions at the time of hearing alone)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2013) (fact-sensitive abuse/neglect findings must rest on particularized competent evidence; courts cannot fill gaps)
- G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (N.J. 1999) (standard for failure to exercise minimum degree of care: awareness of danger and reckless creation of a risk of serious injury)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.R., 419 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 2011) (example of perilous condition where an ordinary reasonable person would recognize risk to an infant)
- N.J. Div. of Child Protection & Permanency v. M.C., 435 N.J. Super. 405 (App. Div. 2014) (prior Appellate Division decision interpreted timing of risk assessment; later reconsidered in light of E.D.-O.)