DCPP VS. N.R.Â IN THE MATTER OF J.S., M.L., JR., C.E. AND K.E.(FN-08-77-15, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0410-15T3

On Oct. 14, 2014 a neighbor found four‑year‑old Moe wandering outside in his underwear at about 9:15 a.m.; Moe said nobody was home. The neighbor stayed with him until Nancy (mother) and B.E. (Bob) returned ~15 minutes later.
The Division had an existing Safety Protection Plan prohibiting Bob from being in the home after a prior domestic‑violence incident; Bob admitted he was present that morning.
Nancy initially told the Division her mother (Dina) had been at the house and was in the basement doing laundry; statements from Bob, Moe, Jack (another child), and the neighbor contradicted that account.
Division records (investigation summaries, safety plans) were admitted by agreement at the fact‑finding hearing; Nancy consented to resting on the papers and did not require live witness testimony for those exhibits.
The trial court found Nancy’s testimony not credible, concluded Moe had been left unattended, and adjudicated abuse/neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21. Nancy appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of gross or wanton negligence and error in reliance on documentary evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Division proved abuse/neglect by preponderance that Nancy left four‑year‑old Moe unattended	Division: documentary evidence and witness statements show Moe was left alone and at substantial risk; Nancy violated safety plan context	Nancy: believed grandmother was present; any lapse was ordinary negligence, not gross/wanton negligence required for Title 9 finding	Court: affirmed — record supports finding Nancy left Moe unattended and that circumstances (age, unlocked door, inability to seek help) show gross/wanton negligence sufficient for adjudication
Whether trial court erred in relying on documentary evidence without live testimony	Division: exhibits were admissible and the Division rested on the papers	Nancy: reliance on documents (without live testimony) precluded fair factfinding and deprived her of testing contradictions	Court: no error — Nancy consented to admission and to resting on the papers, so she cannot now challenge reliance on those documents

T.B. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 207 N.J. 294 (2011) (leaving a child alone can be negligent; reasonable belief that supervision exists can make a close case not rising to gross negligence)
G.S. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines "minimum degree of care" and gross/wanton negligence standard)
P.W.R. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 205 N.J. 17 (2011) (abuse/neglect findings are fact‑sensitive and require careful scrutiny)
G.L. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings unless clearly mistaken)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (leaving a child alone is negligent; totality of circumstances decides whether it is gross negligence)
State v. A.R., 213 N.J. 542 (2013) (procedural forfeiture where party induced or consented to an evidentiary procedure limits appellate review)
Gilhooley v. County of Union, 164 N.J. 533 (2000) (trial court should not resolve conflicting factual statements without live testimony)
State v. Corsaro, 107 N.J. 339 (1987) (errors induced or consented to by defense counsel generally are not reversible on appeal)