DCPP VS. S.B.Â IN THE MATTER OF I.A.B. (FN-07-0240-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-2051-15T1

Mother (S.B.) had a prior Division substantiation for causing the death of her older child, I.B. (Ida); police charged her with aggravated manslaughter after autopsy revealed blunt-force trauma and liver laceration.
While criminal proceedings were pending, Law Division bail conditions (entered July 2014) prohibited S.B. from custody or contact with any newborn absent Family Part order.
S.B. gave birth to I.A.B. (Ian) in October 2014; the Division substantiated her for abuse/neglect of Ian based on the prior substantiation/charges and her inability to have custody under the bail order.
The Division attempted to place Ian with relatives but ruled out several relatives for various reasons; no safe placement plan was finalized at the time of the Title 9 hearing.
At the Family Part fact-finding hearing, the Division offered investigation records and hospital records; only the Division caseworker testified. The judge found, by a preponderance, that Ian was abused/neglected because S.B. exposed him to a substantial risk of imminent harm and lacked safe plans for his care.
Family Part approved permanency plan for termination of parental rights; S.B. appealed the fact-finding order asserting insufficient proof of abuse/neglect and that bail restrictions and proposed family plans eliminated any risk.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Division proved Ian was abused/neglected by exposure to a substantial risk of imminent harm based on S.B.'s prior substantiation/charges and lack of safe care plan	Division: Prior substantiation for fatal abuse of another child is admissible and shows substantial risk to newborn; no safe plan in place and bail restriction prevented S.B. from providing care	S.B.: No criminal conviction; prior charge/Division action alone insufficient; she had identified relatives to care for Ian and bail condition prevented risk	Court: Affirmed. Preponderance of credible evidence supported finding of substantial risk from prior abuse and absence of safe placement; court may consider prior abuse of another child as evidence of risk under Title 9
Whether reliance on Law Division bail condition to assess risk was improper	Division: The bail condition affected S.B.'s ability to care for Ian or to implement a safe plan; Family Part could consider that fact	S.B.: Bail condition eliminated risk by prohibiting custody/contact; reliance on it to find abuse was misplaced	Court: Family Part did not base finding solely on bail condition but properly considered its practical effect on availability/safety of care; consideration was appropriate absent modification application

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.L., 201 N.J. 210 (2010) (appellate deference to Family Part fact-finding supported by substantial credible evidence)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (scope of review expands when judge's factual evaluation is challenged)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. Y.N., 220 N.J. 165 (2014) (Title 9 balances parental rights and State's parens patriae duties)
N.J. Dep't of Children & Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (statutory framework for adjudicating abuse/neglect and focus on actual or imminent impairment)
Dep't of Children and Families v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (minimum degree of care standard; focus on imminent danger and substantial risk)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. S.I., 437 N.J. Super. 142 (App. Div. 2014) (Title 9 protects children who suffer serious injury inflicted by other than accidental means)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (2011) (State bears burden of proving abuse/neglect by preponderance and must present competent, material, relevant evidence)