Department of Children and Families, Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. G.R.
435 N.J. Super. 392
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- December 6, 2007: GR left her two-year-old unattended in a minivan in a Target parking lot; dispute over exact location, timing, and route back to vehicle.
- December 12, 2007: police referred the matter to the Division; caseworker verified incident but found no signs of abuse or neglect at home.
- January 28, 2008: Division notified GR of substantiation for neglect; GR sought an OAL hearing and discovery.
- March–April 2008: caseworker notes cultural differences; other reports show GR was a good, caring parent; Division closes file on April 2, 2008.
- May 1, 2008–August 2012: delays ensue—AHU hearing request, misplacement of GR’s file by a DAG, and no timely OAL scheduling; discovery eventually provided in 2012.
- January 2013: Division moves for summary disposition; Director grants summary disposition despite disputed facts; GR appeals alleging delay and fairness concerns; case remanded for hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary disposition was proper given disputed material facts | GR argues facts were unresolved and required an OAL hearing | Division contends no material facts in dispute; summary disposition appropriate | No, factual disputes existed; remand for hearing |
| Whether the five-year delay violated due process/fundamental fairness | Delay caused reputational harm and injustice; fairness requires dismissal or remedy | Delay alone not fatal; no proven prejudice; not per se unfair | Remand for fundamental fairness examination; not resolve merits here |
| Whether GR’s conduct constitutes neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21c(4)(b) | Leaving a very young child unattended can be neglect under statute | Facts require individualized, case-by-case analysis; no automatic neglect finding | Remand to resolve disputed facts and apply law on a case-by-case basis |
| Should the case be dismissed or partially dismissed due to delay or fairness grounds | Five-year lapse warrants dismissal | Delay may be excused pending proper proceedings | Remand to consider dismissal or fairness grounds on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines minimum degree of care and gross negligence standard)
- Docket v. E.D.-O., 434 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 2014) (case discussing neglect in motor-vehicle context)
- In re Kallen, 92 N.J. 14 (1983) (delay generally not validity issue absent prejudice)
- State v. Miller, 216 N.J. 40 (2013) (fundamental fairness doctrine as extraordinary remedy)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.R., 314 N.J. Super. 390 (App. Div. 1998) (public safety role of Registry and potential harm to innocent person)
- Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. V.T., 423 N.J. Super. 320 (App. Div. 2011) (case-by-case totality-of-circumstances approach)
- In re Arndt, 67 N.J. 432 (1975) (fundamental fairness due process considerations in agency actions)
- Dept. of Children & Families v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 (2011) (establishes grossly negligent or reckless standard in neglect cases)
- M.R. (repeat), M.R., 314 N.J. Super. 390 (App. Div. 1998) ( Registry implications and public interest)