DCPP VS. S.N. AND H.M. Â IN THE MATTER OF U.N.(FN-09-356-13, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0409-15T1

Background

Child U.N. (adopted from Pakistan, age eight) exhibited repeated behavioral problems: running away, stealing, interacting with strangers, aggression, threats of self-harm, and an alleged sexual assault after leaving home unsupervised.
Multiple Division of Child Protection and Permanency referrals (2012–2013) led to investigations; several physical-injury reports were found unfounded but concerns about supervision and behavior persisted.
Psychologist Dr. Maddux evaluated U.N. and concluded his conduct stemmed from inadequate supervision, inconsistent discipline, poor boundaries, and unstable attachment; he strongly recommended immediate individual therapy for U.N. and parenting training for his adoptive mother, Susan (S.N.).
Susan acknowledged being overwhelmed, did not follow Dr. Maddux’s recommended treatments, and left U.N. unsupervised on occasions (including leaving him with a disabled husband and refusing to take him for emergency care when suicidal ideation was reported), after which a Dodd removal occurred.
The Division filed a Title Nine complaint alleging abuse/neglect by failing to seek recommended psychological treatment and by leaving the child with an inappropriate caregiver; the family court found Susan abused/neglected U.N. by subjecting him to a substantial risk of harm.
On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s factual findings that Susan’s failure to follow recommended treatment and to adequately supervise the child constituted gross or wanton negligence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Susan’s failure to obtain recommended psychological/psychiatric treatment for U.N. amounted to abuse or neglect under N.J. Title Nine	Division: failure to follow Dr. Maddux’s recommendations created imminent danger of impairment and breached minimum degree of care	Susan: she did not cause the behavior; refusal of the suggested parenting strategy is not gross negligence	Court: Affirmed — failure to pursue recommended treatment and remedial services established neglect by exposing child to substantial risk of harm
Whether leaving U.N. with disabled husband during Susan’s short hospital visit constituted neglect	Division: leaving child with primarily bedridden caregiver was reckless given known risks	Susan: absence was brief and for urgent medical care; not grossly negligent	Court: Affirmed — leaving child with an inappropriate caregiver when aware of dangers was wanton/reckless and breached minimum duty of care
Whether there was sufficient evidence of imminent danger to support Title Nine finding by preponderance	Division: cumulative incidents, expert opinion, and escalation of risky behavior showed imminent danger	Susan: lack of objective evidence she acted willfully or wantonly; perceived threats not legitimate	Court: Affirmed — record and expert findings supported conclusion child was in imminent danger absent corrective action
Standard of review for family court findings in Title Nine cases	Division: deference to trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings	Susan: asks appellate review of sufficiency of evidence	Court: Applied deferential standard; will not reverse unless findings are clearly mistaken; affirmed trial judge’s fact-based conclusions

Key Cases Cited

G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines “minimum degree of care” as gross or wanton negligence and explains parental duties when aware of danger)
Miller v. Newsweek, 660 F. Supp. 852 (D. Del. 1987) (cited for definition of minimum degree of care in negligence context)
E.P. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 196 N.J. 88 (2008) (appellate deference to trial court’s credibility findings and ‘‘feel of the case’’ rationale)
M.M. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (discusses deference to family court factfinding)
E.D.-O. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (abuse/neglect cases are fact-sensitive; courts apply established standards)
S.I. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 437 N.J. Super. 142 (App. Div. 2014) (Division must prove actual harm or imminent danger by competent evidence)
G.L. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (standard for appellate intervention where trial court’s findings are ‘‘clearly mistaken’’)
T.B. v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 207 N.J. 294 (2011) (reiterates fact-sensitive nature of child-protection adjudications)