New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency, 132 A.3d 433

Twenty-five-day-old A.M. was taken to the ER after parents discovered a bump on his head and a bruised lip; initial CT scan showed inconclusive irregularities but a follow-up CT and skeletal survey were normal.
Mother K.F. initially said she found the baby on the floor after leaving him on a bed while she assisted with another child; days later she admitted placing the infant near the bed edge; father D.M. consistently said he was in another room and repeated mother’s account.
Division’s SPRU report and doctors relayed concerns that the injury was inconsistent with an infant’s motor abilities, producing suspicion about the parents’ explanations.
Division presented an expert (Dr. Agrawal) who testified it was unlikely a 25-day-old would roll off a bed unless placed half on/half off; she also noted no imaging evidence of fracture and that marks could be birth-related.
At the close of the Division’s case the trial judge applied the D.T. burden‑shifting paradigm, the parents presented no evidence, and the judge found both parents abused or neglected the child; D.M. appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the D.T. burden‑shifting paradigm could be applied here	D.T. should apply when the mechanism is unexplained and medical testimony undermines parents’ accounts, permitting burden shift to defendants to prove non‑culpability	D.T. inapplicable because one parent (mother) took responsibility; burden‑shifting improper where only one parent ever claimed culpability and Division failed to prove which parent caused injury	Court held D.T. did not apply; burden shift was improper because mother admitted responsibility and there was no evidence implicating father
Whether Division proved by preponderance that D.M. abused or neglected the infant	Division argued medical testimony and inconsistent accounts justified finding abuse/neglect against both caregivers	D.M. argued Division failed to meet its burden as medical evidence was weak, no proof directly implicated him, and burden‑shifting illegally required him to prove innocence	Court reversed: Division did not prove D.M. abused or neglected; judge erred in shifting burden and in finding D.M. culpable on this record

In re D.T., 229 N.J. Super. 509 (App. Div. 1988) (authorizes limited burden‑shifting to defendants in rare cases where multiple potential abusers deny responsibility and identity of abuser cannot be established)
Dep't of Children & Families, Div. of Child Prot. & Perm. v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (explains Title 9’s purpose to protect children from non‑accidental serious injury)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (describes appellate standard when reviewing trial judge’s evaluation of facts and implications)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (sets standard for overturning factual findings that are unsupported by competent, relevant and credible evidence)