New Jersey Department of Children and Families v. R.R. (New Jersey Department of Children and Families), 436 N.J. Super. 53

On July 12, 2011, school bus driver R.R. failed to visually inspect her bus after finishing a route; five-year-old C.S. was left on the bus and found asleep and buckled almost an hour later.
The bus aide had been inattentive historically and on that day (texting, seated in wrong place); she told R.R. that C.S. had not taken the bus.
The route that day was not R.R.’s usual route; R.R. honked at C.S.’s stop, received no response, and relied on the aide’s report rather than performing a statutorily required visual inspection.
The IAIU (DCF) substantiated neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b); the Department of Education separately suspended R.R.’s school-bus “S” endorsement for six months (which R.R. did not appeal).
An ALJ granted summary judgment for R.R. on the DCF substantiation, but the DCF Commissioner rejected that recommendation, affirmed the neglect finding, and ordered R.R.’s name on the Child Abuse Registry.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner, reasoning R.R.’s conduct was grossly/wantonly negligent given the statutory duty to inspect, the child’s age, public access to the lot, and the 95°F temperature that day.

Issue	Petitioner (DCF) Argument	Respondent (R.R.) Argument	Held
Whether R.R.’s failure to inspect the bus constituted neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b) (i.e., failure to exercise the minimum degree of care = gross or wanton negligence).	R.R. willfully/wantonly failed to perform the required inspection, relied on an unreliable aide, left a young child alone in a public vehicle in 95°F conditions, creating substantial risk.	It was reasonable to rely on the aide’s report and the lack of an adult at the stop; R.R.’s conduct was not grossly or wantonly negligent.	Court held DCF proved violation: conduct was grossly/wantonly negligent; substantiation affirmed.
Whether the Commissioner’s substantiation was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the record (i.e., whether agency decision deserved deference).	Agency expertise and record support the finding; review should defer unless decision is arbitrary or unreasonable.	Second ALJ found no neglect; R.R. argued the Commissioner erred in rejecting that decision.	Court deferred to agency expertise and found the Commissioner’s decision was reasonable and supported by the record; affirmed.

G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 157 N.J. 161 (1999) (defines "minimum degree of care" as grossly or wantonly negligent)
In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999) (actual harm not required for neglect finding)
N.J. Dep't of Children & Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (same principle regarding imminent danger and neglect)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.B., 207 N.J. 294 (2011) (grossly negligent acts support inference of future danger)
Dep't of Children & Families v. E.D.-O., 434 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 2014) (young child left unattended in vehicle constitutes failure to exercise minimum care)
Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500 (1992) (appellate deference to agency expertise)
In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (2007) (standards for upsetting administrative agency decisions)