Div. of Youth & Fam. Serv. v. Ar
17 A.3d 850
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Facts undisputed: James, a ten-month-old, was placed on a twin bed without rails in a bedroom with a sleeping Anna and a hot radiator nearby.
- The door to the room was closed; James was left unattended on the bed while the adults were elsewhere.
- James awoke to find himself on the floor against a hot radiator with severe burns to his head and arm.
- The trial judge found negligence but not gross negligence, stating the conduct was ordinary negligence rather than reckless or wanton.
- The Division later moved for reconsideration after the Division pled guilty to fourth-degree child neglect arising from the same conduct; conviction occurred December 13, 2010.
- The appellate panel concluded the undisputed facts showed conduct meeting the gross negligence standard and reversed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placing a ten-month-old on an unprotected bed near a radiator constitutes abuse or neglect | Division argues conduct was grossly negligent under 9:6-8.21(c). | J.H. contends the conduct was only negligent, not grossly negligent. | Yes; conduct was gross negligence. |
| Whether the trial court's legal conclusions based on undisputed facts are entitled to deference | Division posits deference to trial court's law-grounded conclusions. | J.H. argues trial court findings should be given deference as factual determinations. | Court reviews legal conclusions de novo; not bound by deference to the trial court's legal conclusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines 'abused or neglected' standard and minimum care required)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (2011) (fact-sensitive assessment under 9:6-8.21)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C., III, 201 N.J. 328 (2010) (limits on interpretation of 'minimum degree of care')
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.L., 410 N.J. Super. 159 (App.Div. 2009) (illustrates gross negligence thresholds in different settings)
- Manalapan Realty v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (trial court's legal interpretation not entitled to special deference)
- Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369 (2010) (non-deferential approach to legal standards in some contexts)
- City of Atlantic City v. Trupos, 201 N.J. 447 (2010) (clarifies standard for appellate review of legal conclusions)