Department of Children & Families v. T.B.
207 N.J. 294
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Susan left her four-year-old son John unsupervised for two hours, mistakenly believing his grandmotherMary was home, in Atlantic Highlands, on March 25, 2007.
- DYFS substantiated neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b) for inadequate supervision after John wandered to a neighbor and police intervened.
- ALJ dismissed the neglect finding, concluding Susan’s conduct was an unfortunate mistake and not sufficient to prove impairment or imminent danger.
- DYFS Director reinstated the neglect finding, stating Susan failed to take cautionary supervision actions and exposed John to substantial risk of harm.
- Appellate Division affirmed the Director’s finding of neglect under Title Nine; the case was certified to the Supreme Court.
- Court reverses, remands to remove Susan from the Child Abuse Registry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs failure to exercise a minimum degree of care under the statute? | DYFS argues minimum degree equates to gross negligence. | Susan argues standard should reflect mere negligence or an isolated mistake. | Minimum degree of care requires gross negligence or wanton conduct (not mere negligence). |
| Did Susan’s actions meet the minimum degree of care standard under the facts? | DYFS asserts she left child unsupervised structurally at risk. | Susan contends conduct was negligent but not grossly negligent. | Susan’s conduct was negligent but not grossly negligent or reckless; no finding of impairment; registry removal ordered. |
| Is placement on the Child Abuse Registry appropriate where the conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger or impairment? | Registry inclusion is mandatory when neglect is found. | Registrant contends no present or future danger warrants registry. | Remanded for removal of Susan's name from the Registry. |
Key Cases Cited
- G.S. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defined minimum degree of care as gross negligence/wanton conduct rather than mere intent; cautionary act concept)
- McLaughlin v. Rova Farms, Inc., 56 N.J. 288 (1970) (discussed the difficulty of defining willful misconduct; context matters)
- Fielder v. Stonack, 141 N.J. 101 (1995) (willful/wanton misconduct involves reckless disregard for safety)
- G.S. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. (A.R. case referenced), 419 N.J. Super. 538 (App.Div.2011) (illustrates application of G.S. standard in appellate review)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (2011) (reiterates Title Nine’s protective purpose for children)