DCPP VS. S.A. AND A.N.IN THE MATTER OF A.N. AND E.N.(FN-07-136-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4375-15T3

Background

S.A. is mother of E.N., a child diagnosed with autism who, beginning around age 10, exhibited escalating aggressive and self‑injurious behavior. Father was incarcerated and not a decisionmaker in practice.
From 2012–2014 E.N. had repeated crisis episodes resulting in at least a dozen emergency‑room visits and multiple short hospital admissions at several hospitals. ER clinicians repeatedly recommended ongoing outpatient psychiatric/medication management and, later, residential care.
S.A. frequently relied on emergency stabilization rather than establishing continuous outpatient psychiatric care; she admitted stopping prescribed psychotropic medications without consulting a treating psychiatrist.
The Division investigated, assisted with paperwork (including a DDD application), substantiated medical neglect (finding deprivation of necessary care causing serious harm or substantial risk), and filed for care and supervision of E.N. in August 2014.
At the fact‑finding hearing the Division presented expert testimony (child/adolescent psychiatrist Dr. Taneli) and documentary evidence; S.A. testified and conceded many omissions but presented no expert rebuttal. The trial judge found medical neglect and actual harm and entered an order; S.A. appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial, competent, credible evidence supports a finding of medical neglect (gross negligence)	Division: expert testimony and records show repeated recommendations for continuous psychiatric care which S.A. knowingly ignored, producing a course of conduct showing gross negligence	S.A.: court lacked sufficient evidence of gross negligence; conduct at worst negligent or reasonable crisis management	Affirmed — record (expert testimony, documents, S.A.'s admissions) supports gross‑negligence finding under Title 9 and case law; deference to Family Part credibility findings
Whether the trial court’s statement of reasons was adequate	Division: judge explained totality, factual findings, and why emergency care was insufficient; reasons adequate	S.A.: reasons insufficiently specific to support the finding	Held adequate — judge addressed timeframe, pattern of conduct, need for ongoing treatment, and credibility, satisfying requirement for reasons tied to facts
Whether the court’s finding of actual harm was speculative	Division: lack of sustained outpatient care caused inability to achieve optimal stabilization — constitutes actual harm	S.A.: claimed harm was speculative and not proven	Court found actual harm — expert linked inconsistent treatment to recurrent aggression and lack of stabilization; factual basis supports actual harm finding
Standard of review applicability (deference to Family Part)	Division: appellate deference appropriate for factual findings and credibility assessments	S.A.: urged closer review of evidentiary sufficiency	Held: appellate courts defer to Family Part factfinding; legal conclusions reviewed de novo but facts were supported

Key Cases Cited

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.H.C., 415 N.J. Super. 551 (App. Div.) (standard of review for Family Part fact‑findings and deference to trial court credibility assessments)
M.C. III v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 201 N.J. 328 (2010) (deference to trial court credibility and fact finding in family matters)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (family courts’ special jurisdiction and expertise warrant deference on factfinding)
G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (Title 9 neglect standard requires gross negligence)
Dep’t of Children & Families v. E.D‑O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (consideration of actual or threatened harm and child protection focus)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (2011) (courts must evaluate totality of circumstances in neglect cases)