New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency, 137 A.3d 1232

On June 12, 2013 police and the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) responded to a welfare check after a relative reported that defendant K.G. left her ten-month-old son Valentine alone with her 19‑year‑old son Carl, who is developmentally disabled.
Officers found Valentine asleep and apparently well cared for; Carl exhibited childlike behavior, could not answer how to get help, and retreated when officers arrived.
DDD and school evaluations showed Carl has significant cognitive limitations (IQ reported between 51 and 62), functions at about a second‑ or third‑grade level, requires supervision at work and school, and lacks reliable independent living skills.
Defendant admitted she sometimes left Carl alone with the infant for errands; she disputed the length of time she was away on June 12 and claimed Carl could call her or 911.
The trial judge found the Division’s witnesses credible, rejected defendant’s version and expert testimony as based on inaccurate facts, concluded defendant was grossly negligent for leaving the infant alone with Carl for an extended period, and entered a finding of child neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21(c)(4)(b).
The Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings and applying the totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test to uphold gross negligence/neglect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leaving infant with cognitively impaired adult child constitutes neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6‑8.21(c)(4)(b)	Leaving Valentine alone with Carl created imminent danger/substantial risk; defendant was grossly negligent	Defendant argued no actual harm, Carl could care for the baby, and this was reasonable parental judgment	Court held defendant was grossly negligent; risk at time of event sufficient for neglect finding
Proper standard and scope of review for credibility and factual findings	Defer to trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations	Argued trial court erred in discrediting defense evidence and expert	Appellate court affirmed; substantial credible evidence supports findings; appellate review limited to legal issues
Whether a one‑time lapse vs. pattern affects gross negligence finding	Emphasized defendant’s practice of leaving Carl alone, not an isolated incident	Claimed incidents were short, reasonable errands and expert showed safety	Court found pattern of leaving child alone and extended absence supported gross negligence
Admissibility/weight of DDD/school evaluations and expert testimony	Used multidisciplinary evidence showing Carl’s incapacity	Argued DDD findings and some expert exclusion were improper and prejudicial	Court found DDD/school evidence probative; rejected defense expert where based on inaccurate facts; no abuse of discretion

Dep’t of Children & Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (Title 9 neglect can be based on imminent danger or substantial risk even without actual harm)
Dep’t of Children & Families v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166 (2015) (totality of circumstances test required; courts may not apply categorical rules)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. C.W., 435 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 2014) (appellate deference to family court factual findings and credibility)
T.B. v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 207 N.J. 294 (2011) (distinguishing negligent parental errors from gross negligence under Title 9)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.L., 410 N.J. Super. 159 (App. Div. 2009) (contextual analysis can show negligence but not gross negligence)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012) (deference to family court credibility and special expertise)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (legal standard — appellate plenary review of legal conclusions)
In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999) (courts need not wait until irreparable harm to act to protect children)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. K.N.S., 441 N.J. Super. 392 (App. Div. 2015) (parent’s knowledge of a caregiver’s limitations is relevant to neglect determination)