DCPP VS. S.P., K.O. AND D.C., IN THE MATTER OF N.P. AND G.O. (FN-21-0144-19, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3917-19

Nearly three-year-old G.O. was disciplined after defecating on the floor; mother S.P. (Sue) admitted spanking him and in earlier statements said she put her arm around his shoulder, pulled him, and held him between her legs to restrain him.
The next day G.O. had arm pain and swelling; medical care occurred about two days after the incident; X-rays showed a displaced humerus fracture (described as spiral/oblique).
Treating radiologist and DCPP child-abuse pediatric expert testified the fracture was consistent with a twisting/rotational mechanism requiring fairly severe force and linked timing/symptoms to the spanking incident.
Sue’s expert opined the fracture was more consistent with accidental causes common in active toddlers; there were no other skeletal injuries to suggest wider abuse.
The trial court found Sue’s trial testimony inconsistent with prior statements, admitted the boyfriend’s investigatory statements as statements against interest, credited the Division’s experts, and held Sue’s deliberate restraint/pulling foreseeably caused the fracture — constituting abuse under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(1).
The Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to the Family Part’s credibility findings, upholding the evidentiary ruling (while noting the trial court should have given notice when revisiting it), and rejecting Sue’s burden-shifting claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCPP)	Defendant's Argument (Sue)	Held
Sufficiency to find "abuse" under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(1)	Evidence shows nonaccidental fracture caused by mother’s force while restraining child	Fracture was likely accidental (play, fall); expert supports accidental etiology	Affirmed: preponderance met; court credited radiologist and DCPP expert and found foreseeable risk from mother’s conduct
Admissibility of boyfriend’s out-of-court statements	Statements show his knowledge of injury and expose him to neglect liability; admissible as statement against interest	Hearsay; not a party-opponent and thus inadmissible	Admissible under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25); appellate court upheld ruling though noted trial court should have given notice when revisiting prior ruling
Alleged burden-shift to defendant	DCPP maintained it bore burden to prove abuse by preponderance	Court improperly required Sue to prove nonculpability, denying due process	Rejected: trial court explicitly declined to shift burden and applied DCPP’s burden of proof
Weight/credibility of competing expert testimony	DCPP expert’s methodology and linkage to incident more persuasive	Defense expert favored accidental explanation and challenged causal mechanism	Affirmed trial court’s credibility determinations; appellate court defers to Family Part on expert credibility

N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (2014) (deference to Family Part factfinding in child-protection matters)
G.S. v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (parental deliberate conduct that foreseeably risks injury qualifies as "other than accidental means")
Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 (2011) (court must give parties fair opportunity to be heard before revisiting interlocutory rulings)
Griffin v. City of E. Orange, 225 N.J. 400 (2016) (standard for reviewing alleged abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
State v. J.L.G., 234 N.J. 265 (2018) (deference to trial court credibility findings about expert witnesses)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for appellate review: adequate, substantial, credible evidence)
State v. Andrews, 243 N.J. 447 (2020) (citing Rova Farms standard for appellate deference)