RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1368-18T1

NEW JERSEY DIVISION 

OF CHILD PROTECTION 

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

B.M., 

Defendant-Appellant,

and

J.A. and T.S., 

Defendants.

_____________________________

IN THE MATTER OF C.S., 

a Minor.

_____________________________

Submitted October 7, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Sabatino and Geiger.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

October 11, 2019
2

A-1368-18T1

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, 

Docket No. FN-01-0194-17.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, on 

the briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Donna Sue Arons, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Nicholas Joseph Dolinsky, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minor (Sara A. Friedman, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant B.M. ("the mother") 1appeals from the Family Part's factfinding determination that she committed abuse or neglect of her four-year-old 

daughter C.S. in violation of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(2) and (c)(4)(b), by leaving 

her unsupervised in a house, and one in which drug transactions had been 

occurring. We affirm.

 

1 We use initials for the persons in the household to protect the child's privacy, 

pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d)(12). We shall refer to the child C.S. by the 

pseudonym "Clara."
3

A-1368-18T1

I.

The residence in question was the subject of a narcotics investigation by 

the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office and other authorities. The mother resided 

at the premises with her boyfriend, co-defendant J.A., who is not the child's 

father. The child was discovered at that residence unattended.

The Division of Child Protection and Permanency ("the Division") 

presented two witnesses at the fact-finding trial: a Galloway Township Police 

Detective, Bryan Casey; and a Division caseworker, Chaka James, who took part 

in the Division's investigation. We summarize the key facts shown by their 

testimony and the records admitted into evidence.

A.

The Ocean County Prosecutor's Office was investigating multiple heroin 

overdoses in Ocean County. County narcotics investigators determined the 

overdoses had been caused by the victims ingesting a heroin stamped "King of 

Death." The Prosecutor's Office identified the mother's boyfriend J.A., through 

confidential informants, as the seller from whom informants were purchasing 

the heroin. J.A. went by the street name "Cash." 
4

A-1368-18T1

The Prosecutor's Office contacted Detective Casey, and told him about the 

narcotics activity and "Cash." Casey then took part in further investigation of 

the narcotics activity.

On January 29, 2017, Casey, along with six other detectives from County 

and local police forces, established surveillance in and around the area of the 

mother's residence on South Genista Avenue in Galloway Township. While on 

site, Casey observed J.A. conduct "several hand-to-hand narcotics transactions" 

with people who came to the residence. 

At some later unspecified time that same day, the mother and J.A. left the 

residence by car. According to Casey, he was positioned at that time "maybe a 

hundred yards" from the residence, and therefore was unable to watch the mother 

and J.A. get into the car and leave. However, he observed them in their car when 

it came to the intersection with Route 30, where he was waiting in his police car. 

Based on his earlier observations of what appeared to be drug transactions, 

Casey pulled the car over approximately a mile from the house, at the 

intersection of Route 30 and Pomona Road. J.A. was driving and the mother 

was in the passenger seat. Casey estimated this motor vehicle stop took about 

twenty to thirty minutes. 
5

A-1368-18T1

As a result of the stop, J.A. was placed under arrest, and the mother was 

detained. Both J.A. and the mother were taken into custody and transported 

back to the Galloway Township Police Department. 

According to Casey, Ocean County police officers went back to the home 

"right after" the traffic stop to "secure the residence." Casey learned those 

officers came in contact with an unattended four-year-old minor (i.e., Clara) 

inside the home. 

Casey acknowledged that he did not have any direct contact with Clara. 

Any knowledge he had about Clara being alone or unattended when the officers 

first arrived was gained through other people. 

After Casey pulled over J.A.'s vehicle, he applied to a judge for a search 

warrant for the mother's home. The warrant was approved several hours later. 

Casey then returned to the home to execute the warrant, along with multiple 

other officers. The search uncovered what Casey had believed to be heroin in 

the kitchen, packaged with the "King of Death" stamp. 

The substance was not field-tested because the officers feared it might 

contain the dangerous chemical Fentanyl. Instead, the substance was sent to the 

State Police Forensic Laboratory for analysis. However, no test results were 

presented to the Family Part judge in this case. 
6

A-1368-18T1

Casey was not the police officer who found the suspected heroin. 

However, he was inside the residence when another officer found it, and he

testified to seeing the "King of Death" stamp on the drugs. 

The report of the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office indicates the search 

also uncovered a prescription pill bottle, suspected to be morphine, under the 

bathroom sink, and a plastic bag containing "green vegetation," suspected to be 

marijuana, on the dining room table. Tests of these substances were not 

presented at the fact-finding hearing.

James, the Division's other witness, was assigned to the Division's initial 

response investigation. The primary caseworker for the Division, Christina

Martella, did not testify, but her activities were described by James and 

documented in the Division's records admitted into evidence.

2

 

During the pendency of the search warrant, the Division received a call 

from Police Officer Chris Maggazzo advising that Clara had been found home 

alone. The Division was told that Clara was now safe and at the house of a 

neighbor, named Dublin. James and Martella were asked to go to the Galloway 

Police station, where J.A. and the mother were being held, before responding to 

 

2 The interviews of the mother and Clara were performed by the primary 

caseworker, Martella. James was present for the interview with the mother and 

J.A., but was not present for the interview with Clara. 
7

A-1368-18T1

the home. While at the police station, Martella and James interviewed the 

mother. 

The interview of the mother took place before the search warrant was

executed, while Detective Casey was still at the police station. Casey was 

present for the interview. The mother told Martella and James that Clara's 

biological father is T.S., an inmate in state prison, with whom she has no contact. 

The mother acknowledged dating and living with J.A., but claimed she did not 

know if J.A. sold or used drugs. 

According to the Division's report, when Martella asked why the mother 

had left Clara at home, the "mother responded that she was going to [a] CVS

[store] to purchase cough medicine for [Clara]." When asked why neither the 

mother nor J.A. stayed home with Clara, the mother's response was that she does 

not drive because "she hurt her spine," and that J.A. supposedly "would not have 

known what kind of medicine to buy."

Martella and James then left the police station and arrived at the mother's 

home around 5:30 p.m., where they encountered two police officers outside. 

They were told the officers were waiting for the issuance of a search warrant. 

Martella and James then went next door to the neighbor's house where Clara, by 

that point, was safely located. 
8

A-1368-18T1

The Division workers picked up Clara and took her to the hospital for a 

pre-placement physical. Once at the hospital, Martella interviewed Clara. The 

Division's report reflects that Clara told Martella that her "mother left her alone 

that day while she went to the store to get medicine." According to the report, 

Clara also told Martella that her "cough hurts and throat hurts."

While Martella was interviewing Clara at the hospital, James went to the 

home of the mother's sister, J.M., to conduct a home assessment for a potential 

placement of Clara. After performing background checks of everyone living in 

the home, the Division placed Clara in J.M.'s home on an emergency basis. 

The following day, James (possibly accompanied by Martella)

interviewed J.A. at the Atlantic County Jail. The caseworker informed J.A. that 

he was an "alleged perp" in this case. The worker then asked J.A. if he thought 

it had been safe to leave Clara home alone, if only to go to CVS. As indicated 

in the Division report, J.A. responded that Clara "was left in the home with a pit 

bull, and the house alarm on." J.A. also reportedly stated that he had notified 

an unnamed "neighbor's girlfriend" that he and Clara's mother were running to 

the store, and asked her to "keep an eye on" Clara.

The mother did not testify in her own behalf at the fact-finding hearing. 

She presented no witnesses. Nor did the Law Guardian for Clara, who joined 
9

A-1368-18T1

with the Division in urging the judge to find the mother had neglected Clara in 

violation of Title Nine.

B.

After considering these proofs, the Family Part judge concluded the 

mother and J.A. had abused or neglected Clara within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 

9:6-8.21(c)(2) and (c)(4)(b). With regard to the allegations of drug-dealing 

activity, the judge found that, although he was "mindful that there was no actual 

lab report in this case," based upon Detective Casey's training and experience,

and other surrounding events, the court could "circumstantially decide" by a 

"preponderance of the evidence" that illegal drugs were present. 

The trial judge also found that Clara had been left home alone. He based 

his ruling on several proofs: (1) the mother's admission to the Division 

caseworkers, in the presence of Detective Casey, that she had left Clara home to 

go to the CVS; (2) J.A.'s admission of that same fact to the Division worker; and 

(3) Clara's statements to the Division worker, which were corroborated by the 

other statements. As the judge summarized his "collective" reasons:

[C]ollectively when you take the [police] officer's

[testimony and] . . . listening to the investigation of the 

[case]worker where mom admitted she's left home 

alone, you take a child's statement, and you take the two 

statements from the defendants, collectively you have a 
10 A-1368-18T1

picture that's corroborated, reliable and credible, that 

the child was left home alone[.]

Eventually Clara was returned to her home in the custody of the mother. 

The trial court terminated the litigation in October 2018. The mother then filed 

the present appeal. J.A. is no longer involved in this litigation. 

II.

A.

The applicable law under Title Nine is well established. Where the 

Division seeks temporary custody of a child based on a belief that a child has 

been neglected or abused, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21, the trial judge is to 

conduct an evidentiary hearing, after which the judge must make specific factual 

findings to determine "whether the child is an abused or neglected child[.]" N.J. 

Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.Y., 352 N.J. Super. 245, 261-62 (App. Div. 

2002) (citations omitted). At the fact-finding hearing, "only competent, material 

and relevant evidence may be admitted." N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(b). The Division 

bears the burden of proving abuse and neglect by a preponderance of such 

competent evidence. Ibid. If the court is satisfied that this burden has been 

established, it "shall state the grounds for [such] findings." N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.50(a).

Abuse and neglect, as defined by N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c), occurs when
11 A-1368-18T1

[a] child whose physical, mental, or emotional 

condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger 

of becoming impaired as the result of the failure of his 

parent or guardian . . . to exercise a minimum degree of 

care . . . in providing the child with proper supervision 

or guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting or allowing 

to be inflicted harm, or substantial risk thereof, 

including the infliction of excessive corporal 

punishment; or by any other acts of a similarly serious 

nature requiring the aid of the court.

[N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4).]

The statute does not require that the child experience actual harm. 

N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b). See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 

211 N.J. 420, 449 (2012) (explaining the Division need not wait until a child 

experiences an actual injury); see also In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 

365, 383 (1999) (stating the court does not need to "wait to act until a child is 

actually irreparably impaired by parental inattention or neglect"). Instead, a 

child can be abused and neglected if his or her physical, mental, or emotional 

condition has been "impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired." 

N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b) (emphasis added). 

The Title Nine analysis is fact-sensitive, and the court must consider the 

totality of the circumstances. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R.,

205 N.J. 17, 33 (2011). The primary focus of these standards is to preserve the 

safety of the child. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.8.
12 A-1368-18T1

As the Supreme Court has explained, the abuse or neglect is proven when 

the Division demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a parent has 

failed to exercise a "minimum degree of care." G.S. v. Dep't of Human Servs.,

157 N.J. 161, 181 (1999) (citation omitted). A "minimum degree of care" 

encompasses conduct that was grossly or wantonly negligent, but not necessarily 

intentional. Id. at 178. Wanton negligence is conduct that was done with the 

knowledge that injury is likely to result. Ibid. A parent's action or inaction can 

rise to the level of wanton negligence, even if he or she did not intend to cause 

injury. Id. at 179. Moreover, a parent should be liable in this context for the 

foreseeable consequences of his or her choices. Ibid.

B.

Our scope of review of a trial court's factual findings in an abuse or neglect 

case is narrow. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 278-

79 (2007) (citations omitted). We generally defer to the decisions of the Family 

Part because the trial court has the opportunity to make first hand credibility 

judgments and has the "feel of the case." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. 

M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328, 342-43 (2010). A Title Nine fact-finding decision should 

only be reversed or altered on appeal if the findings below were "'so wholly 

unsupportable as to result in a denial of justice.'" N.J. Div. of Youth & Family 
13 A-1368-18T1

Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494, 511 (2004) (quoting In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 

172 N.J. 440, 472 (2002)).

As we will discuss in more detail, infra, the mother argues the trial judge 

improperly allowed inadmissible hearsay evidence, and unfairly relied upon 

such hearsay in his fact-finding. As a general rule, with respect to the exclusion 

or admission of evidence, we afford "[c]onsiderable latitude . . . [to a] trial 

court[.]" N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. N.T., 445 N.J. Super. 478, 

492 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368, 385 (2015)). 

Such a determination on admissibility "will be reversed only if it constitutes an 

abuse of discretion." Kuropchak, 221 N.J. at 385. With these standards in mind, 

we turn to the mother's arguments for reversal. 

C.

As an overarching point, the mother argues there was insufficient 

evidence to support the Division's claims of abuse or neglect. She contends 

Detective Casey had no first-hand knowledge of Clara being left alone at the 

house unsupervised, and that the Division cannot establish that critical fact from 

the hearsay documents. As an alternative argument, she contends she was 

unconstitutionally deprived of a due process right to confront hearsay declarants

whose information was contained in the records.
14 A-1368-18T1

Additionally, the mother argues she should not be blamed for the drug 

activity in the household because she could not control it. She asserts there is 

no proof that Clara was actually harmed by being present while drugs allegedly 

were being bought and sold. She further emphasizes no testing of the substances 

was conducted in this case to confirm they were actually illegal drugs. The 

Division and Law Guardian both oppose these contentions.

We topically divide our analysis of these issues into two parts: (1) the 

court's finding that the mother and her boyfriend J.A. neglected Clara by leaving 

her alone at the house, and (2) neglected Clara by allowing her to be in a house 

where drug dealing was occurring.

1.

We do not accept the mother's excuse that she needed to accompany J.A. 

to buy cough medicine because he might not be able to find it at the store. Rather 

than leaving her four-year-old child unattended, she should have stayed home, 

where J.A. could have called her from the store with any questions about what 

to purchase. Alternatively, she might have brought Clara to the store with her 

and J.A., as there is no proof the child was too sick to accompany them for such 

a trip. 
15 A-1368-18T1

We reject the mother's contention that the trial court based its decision

about the child's abandonment solely on Detective Casey's testimony. To the 

contrary, the court concluded that Clara was left home alone based on multiple 

items of evidence: (1) the mother's statement to the Division workers, 

documented in the investigation summary, acknowledging that Clara was left at 

home while the mother and J.A. went to CVS; (2) Casey testifying that he was 

present when this statement was made; (3) J.A.'s statement about the child's 

abandonment to the Division workers, as documented in the investigation 

summary; and (4) Clara's statement to the Division workers, documented in the 

investigation summary, that she was left home alone, which was corroborated 

by other evidence. 

The Division's investigation summary was properly admitted into 

evidence under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a), which provides:

In any hearing under this act . . . any writing, record or 

photograph . . . made as a memorandum or record of 

any condition, act, transaction, occurrence or event 

relating to a child in an abuse or neglect proceeding of 

any . . . public or private institution or agency shall be 

admissible in evidence in proof of that condition, act, 

transaction, occurrence or event, if the judge finds that 

it was made in the regular course of the business . . . at 

the time of the condition, act, transaction, occurrence 

or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter, shall be 

prima facie evidence of the facts contained in such 

certification.
16 A-1368-18T1

[N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a).]

As James attested, the report was created within a reasonable time after 

the investigation, and drafted in the course of the Division's business. Based on 

this unrefuted foundation, the investigation summary was properly admitted into 

evidence under the statute. 

The statements contained within the investigation summary that the court 

relied upon meet well-established hearsay exceptions and thus were properly 

considered. In particular, the mother's statement that she and J.A. left Clara to 

go to CVS is admissible as a statement by a party-opponent, and not excluded 

by the hearsay rule. N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1). 

J.A.'s hearsay statements in the investigation summary are similarly 

admissible. When informed by a Division worker that he was an "alleged perp"

in this case, J.A. responded that Clara was left in the home with a pit bull and 

the house alarm on while he and the mother went to CVS. He also stated that 

he notified the neighbor's girlfriend that they were running to the store and for 

her to "keep an eye" on Clara. 

These assertions by J.A. were properly admitted and considered as 

statements against his interest. N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25). This exception to the 

hearsay rule declares admissible:
17 A-1368-18T1

[a] statement which was at the time of its making so far 

contrary to the declarant's pecuniary, proprietary, or 

social interest, or so far tended to subject declarant to 

civil or criminal liability . . . that a reasonable person in 

declarant's position would not have made the statement 

unless the person believed it to be true.

[N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25).]

The test of admissibility under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25) is "whether, in the 

context of the whole statement, the particular remark was plausibly against the 

declarant's . . . interest . . . ." State v. Nevius, 426 N.J. Super. 379, 394 (App. 

Div. 2012) (quoting State v. Abrams, 140 N.J. Super. 232, 236 (App. Div. 1976), 

aff'd o.b., 72 N.J. 342, 370 (1997)). After being informed that he was an "alleged 

perp" in the investigation, J.A. admitted to leaving a four-year-old child home 

with a pit bull and the alarm system activated. He also agreed that leaving a 

four-year-old home alone was dangerous. These statements reasonably can be

construed as being against his interest. 

Although J.A. is not Clara's biological father, there is evidence that J.A.

acts as a father-figure to Clara. In the Division's investigation summary, Clara 

herself told Martella that J.A. is her "father." The child also told Martella that 

J.A. drives her back and forth to school, and "hit [her] butt when [she] pooped 

[her] pants." These statements signify that J.A. played a significant role in 

Clara's life. He evidently took on responsibilities of a caretaker, and disciplined
18 A-1368-18T1

Clara. J.A. is not a disinterested third party who only happens to be the 

boyfriend of the mother.

Moreover, his statements reflected a reckless failure to assure the fouryear-old child's safety in the absence of him and her mother. Leaving a pit bull 

at home with a burglar alarm on does not protect a child from having an accident 

while she is left alone. Nor is there proof that an unnamed neighbor was 

watching her.

This Supreme Court's recent decision in Rowe v. Bell & Gossett 

Company, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op. at 33), makes clear that a statement 

against interest under N.J.R.E. 803(e)(25) does not need to be used against the 

declarant of the statement. Rather, such a statement can be used against a third 

party. Ibid. Here, J.A.'s statements against interest were properly admitted 

against the mother, and relied upon by the judge in his analysis.

Apart from this proof, the judge also appropriately relied on Clara's 

statements made to the Division worker. Clara told Martella that she was left 

home alone, and that "when mommy leaves I be scared." That hearsay assertion

is admissible in this Title Nine context, as a previous statement by a child 

corroborated by other evidence under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4). The statute

provides:
19 A-1368-18T1

[P]revious statements made by the child relating to any 

allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in 

evidence; provided, however, that no such statement, if 

uncorroborated, shall be sufficient to make a fact 

finding of abuse or neglect.

[N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4).]

The trial court properly found Clara's statements were corroborated by the 

statements of the mother and J.A. to the Division workers, as well as Detective 

Casey's testimony that he was present for and heard the mother's statements. 

Based on the combination of these statements and Casey's testimony, the court

properly found that the Division met its burden by a preponderance of the 

evidence to show that Clara had been unsafely left home alone.

The mother cites New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. N.B., 

452 N.J. Super. 513, 526-27 (App. Div. 2017), for the proposition that a Title 

Nine fact finding hearing conducted almost entirely on the papers, as she asserts 

was done here, is not sufficient for a finding of abuse or neglect. N.B. is 

distinguishable. In N.B., the only Division witness who presented live 

testimony was a supervisor who lacked personal knowledge of the incident and 

conducted none of the interviews. Ibid. Although the trial court did rely in the 

present case upon portions of the Division's investigation summary, there is 

ample testimony in this case to corroborate those facts. As we have noted, Casey 
20 A-1368-18T1

testified he was present when the mother told Martella and James that she had 

left Clara home while she and J.A. went to CVS. Further, James was the 

Division worker who authenticated the investigation summary, and she 

personally was present for all of the critical interviews except for that of Clara.

We are mindful of the trial court's reference to a portion of Detective 

Casey's testimony stating that police officers were surveying the property the 

entire time the mother and J.A. were gone. We agree this particular detail was 

inadmissible hearsay, because Detective Casey was not present the whole time, 

and he presumably was only aware of this information through hearsay of what 

other officers had told him. See N.J.R.E. 602 (the personal knowledge 

requirement). Even so, based on the clear weight of the other admissible 

evidence, there are more than ample grounds to affirm the court's finding that 

Clara was left home alone.

2.

With respect to the drug dealing issues, the mother stresses Detective 

Casey was not present when the alleged substances were found, and therefore 

his testimony was insufficient for the trial court to make a finding that drugs 

were in the home of the child. The mother also notes no laboratory certification 

was admitted into evidence showing that the substances seized were, in fact, 
21 A-1368-18T1

heroin. She also contends the Division failed to prove that she was connected 

to the drugs in any way.

Despite these arguments, there was ample evidence to support a 

reasonable inference, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Clara was living 

in a home where drugs were being illegally distributed. Casey testified that he 

had observed several "hand-to-hand" transactions on site, and that he was 

present when the substances were found. Although Casey was not the police 

officer who found the drugs, he testified to seeing the "King of Death" stamp on 

the substances.

Casey's testimony, which the judge found credible was sufficient for the 

court to conclude that drug dealing was taking place in the premises. Casey is 

an experienced police officer of twelve years, and has been a detective for five 

years. He observed the same "King of Death" stamp on the substances that was 

the subject of the Ocean County Prosecutor's investigation. 

Even if, for the sake of argument, we ignored the drug-related testimony, 

the mother's conduct in knowingly leaving a sick four-year-old child home alone 

is sufficient to make a finding of abuse or neglect. Consideration of the drug 

evidence would only be, at worst, harmless error. See State v. Tillery, 238 N.J. 

293, 319 (2019) (holding the trial court's mistaken decision to admit evidence 
22 A-1368-18T1

of defendant's statements to police was harmless error) See also Pellicer ex rel. 

Pellicer v. St. Barnabus Hosp., 200 N.J. 22, 55 (2009) (recognizing that "even a 

large number of errors, if inconsequential, may not operate to create an injustice" 

and require a civil judgment to be set aside); Nicosia v. Wakefern Food Corp., 

136 N.J. 401, 412 (1994) (declining to order a new trial in a civil case where the 

trial court's errors were not shown to be harmful). Such harmful error has not 

been demonstrated here.

D.

The mother further argues that, even if the Division could establish that 

Clara had been left home alone, that conduct does not rise to the level of gross 

negligence, because the Division was required to prove that she was aware that 

Clara was unsupervised. See G.S., 157 N.J. at 181. She further argues that the 

Division failed to show that Clara was in "imminent danger." We disagree.

By way of comparison, in Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.B., 207 N.J. 

294 (2011), a mother left her four-year-old child home alone, incorrectly 

believing the child's live-in grandmother was then home with her. Id. at 297. 

The grandmother's car was in the driveway, and the mother stated the 

grandmother was "always home" and "in bed early" on Sunday nights. Ibid. 

The grandmother and grandfather gave statements at the police station and 
23 A-1368-18T1

attested to the fact that the grandmother always was home on Sunday nights, and 

made an impromptu trip to New York on that particular night. Id. at 298. This 

court affirmed an administrative finding of abuse and neglect, but the Supreme 

Court reversed. Id. at 310. The Court noted in T.B. that "[t]his was a close 

case," and "[the mother] was plainly negligent," however, "[t]his is not a 

situation in which she left her four-year-old son at home alone knowing there 

was no adult supervision." Id. at 309-10.

Unlike in T.B., where a mother genuinely, albeit negligently, believed that 

the child's grandmother was home, here, the mother admitted to deliberately 

leaving Clara at home while she and J.A. went to CVS. There is no indication 

that the mother believed anyone was home with Clara. To the contrary, Casey 

testified that he was present when she admitted to leaving Clara home alone. 

Casey's testimony, combined with the statements of the mother, J.A., and Clara, 

constituted sufficient grounds for the court to find that Clara was knowingly left 

home alone without supervision. 

J.A.'s statement that he asked the neighbor's girlfriend to "keep an eye" on 

Clara is not sufficient to prove that he and the mother reasonably believed Clara

was being supervised. Notably, the mother never claimed this or presented any 

corroboration of it.
24 A-1368-18T1

The mother also argues that, even if Clara was left home alone, the 

Division failed to show that Clara was in "imminent danger," as required under 

the statute, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4). Her argument fails to appreciate the dangers 

that inherently attach to leaving a young child unsupervised. In N.J. Dep't of 

Children & Families v. R.R., 436 N.J. Super. 53, 55 (App. Div. 2014), this court 

affirmed a finding of abuse or neglect when a bus driver left a five-year-old 

alone on the bus for almost one hour. Although the child was found asleep and 

unharmed, this court nonetheless found that leaving a minor child alone on the

bus constituted abuse or neglect. Id. at 57. Here, the fact that Clara fortunately 

was unharmed while the mother left her alone at the house does not excuse her 

dangerous conduct. See F.M., 211 N.J. at 449 (explaining that the Division need 

not wait until a child experiences an actual injury). 

E.

We need not comment on the mother's final argument, raised for the first 

time on appeal, contending she was denied a constitutional due process right to 

confront witnesses. See State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009) (noting that 

courts on appeal disfavor reaching issues not raised below); see also Nieder v. 

Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (same). We decline to reach this 

newly minted argument, which would require a major leap in precedent that the 
25 A-1368-18T1

Supreme Court has not undertaken. Moreover, as we have already shown, this 

is a poor case to reach such a confrontation claim, because there is ample proof 

of the mother's Title Nine liability based on the testimony of the witnesses who 

were examined and duly cross-examined.

Affirmed.