Department of Children & Families v. E.D.-o.
121 A.3d 832
| N.J. | 2015Background
- In May 2009 respondent E.D.-O. left her 19‑month‑old daughter asleep in a locked car with the engine running for ~5–10 minutes while she shopped nearby; police were called and the Division substantiated neglect.
- The Division filed a Title 9 care-and-supervision complaint that was later resolved by consent; E.D.-O. pursued administrative review of the substantiation decision.
- The Division Director denied a hearing, granted the Division’s motion for summary disposition, and ordered E.D.-O. placed on the Central Registry; the Appellate Division affirmed.
- E.D.-O. argued that when no actual harm occurred the Division must assess whether the child faced imminent risk at the time of fact‑finding (not only at the time of the incident), and that she was entitled to an OAL hearing.
- The Supreme Court reversed: it held the statutory focus is on the risk posed at the time of the incident (while acknowledging fact‑finding may also consider later circumstances) and ruled the Division improperly denied a hearing because adjudications of neglect that rest on risk (absent actual harm) are fact‑sensitive and require individualized, evidentiary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (E.D.-O.) | Defendant's Argument (Division) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timing of “imminent danger” inquiry under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21(c)(4)(b) | Risk must be assessed at time of fact‑finding (current risk), not at the time of the incident | Risk is evaluated at the time of the parent’s conduct (incident); statute contemplates intervention before actual harm | Court rejected plaintiff’s timing rule: statute contemplates evaluating risk based on the incident (though later facts may inform disposition) |
| Standard for neglect (minimum degree of care) | Single lapse that produced no current risk should not be treated as gross neglect | Where conduct posed an imminent risk at time of incident, substantiation is warranted even if no actual harm occurred | Court reaffirmed that “minimum degree of care” requires grossly negligent or reckless conduct; determination is fact‑sensitive and must consider totality of circumstances |
| Necessity of OAL evidentiary hearing where no actual harm occurred | Agency denied due process by summarily disposing appeals that hinge on risk; these cases require particularized, case‑by‑case hearings | Deference to agency; summary disposition proper where no material facts are disputed | Court held that when neglect allegations rest on risk (no actual harm), fact‑finding requires an individualized hearing at OAL; Division erred in denying referral |
| Use of categorical rules and delay / Central Registry consequences | Categorical treatment and long delays produce unfair, severe consequences (registry placement) | Agency practice reasonable and consistent with precedent | Court disapproved of Division’s categorical approach and criticized inordinate delay; left Registry reform to Legislature but required proper adjudication first |
Key Cases Cited
- G.S. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (N.J. 1999) (defines “minimum degree of care” as gross or wanton negligence and frames cautionary‑act analysis)
- Dep’t of Children & Families v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 (N.J. 2011) (applies gross‑negligence standard to unattended child facts and emphasizes fact‑sensitive inquiry)
- N.J. Dep’t of Children & Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2013) (insufficient medical records alone to prove imminent danger; need particularized evidence of threatened harm)
- In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (N.J. 1999) (courts need not wait for actual irreparable harm before intervening)
- Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. G.R., 435 N.J. Super. 392 (App. Div. 2014) (unattended‑child case reversing summary disposition and directing OAL referral; factors to consider)
- N.J. Dep’t of Children & Families v. R.R., 436 N.J. Super. 53 (App. Div. 2014) (school‑bus case finding gross negligence where totality of circumstances showed imminent risk)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.L., 410 N.J. Super. 159 (App. Div. 2009) (reversed neglect finding where parent retained visual supervision and care was not grossly negligent)
- Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.R., 419 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 2011) (actual harm case finding gross negligence based on foreseeable peril)