## Facts

- In May 2009, E.D.-O. left her 19-month-old child asleep and unattended in a locked car with the engine running in a shopping mall parking lot for about ten minutes while she went into a store.
- A security guard saw the child alone in the running vehicle and contacted authorities, prompting the Division’s involvement.
- A Division caseworker later visited the home, interviewed both parents and the other children, and observed a clean home with food and children who appeared well cared for.
- The father reported the mother had not previously left the children unattended.
- The Division substantiated neglect, and after related Family Part litigation ended by consent order, the mother pursued an administrative challenge to the substantiation.
- Without an evidentiary hearing, the Division concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact and summarily affirmed the substantiation; the Appellate Division affirmed, treating the conduct as gross neglect and finding an OAL hearing unnecessary.

## Issues

1. Under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b), must “imminent danger” be evaluated at the time of the agency’s administrative fact-finding rather than at the time of the underlying incident?
2. May the Division summarily affirm a substantiated finding of “gross neglect,” with Central Registry consequences, without referring the matter for an evidentiary hearing in the Office of Administrative Law when culpability turns on context and disputed or undeveloped facts?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The Court rejected the mother’s argument that “imminent danger” must be assessed at the time of administrative fact-finding; the statute focuses on the risk created by the parent’s conduct at the time of the event.
- The Court held the Division erred by resolving gross neglect through summary disposition and should have referred the matter to the OAL for an evidentiary hearing.
- The Court remanded for a hearing to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, whether the mother’s conduct constituted gross neglect.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b), the relevant inquiry is whether the child’s condition was impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired due to the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care at the time of the act or omission.
- “Minimum degree of care” denotes grossly or wantonly negligent conduct, not ordinary negligence.
- Whether conduct is negligent or grossly negligent requires a totality-of-the-circumstances evaluation, including the child’s age, the duration of the lapse, environmental conditions, and the parent’s overall caregiving history.
- The statute does not impose a per se rule that leaving a child unattended in a vehicle automatically constitutes gross neglect.
- Because a substantiated finding results in placement on the Child Abuse Central Registry with significant reputational and practical consequences, fact-sensitive gross-neglect determinations ordinarily require an OAL evidentiary hearing rather than summary agency action.

## Conclusion

The Court held that imminent-risk analysis under Title 9 is tied to the risk at the time of the incident, but it required an evidentiary OAL hearing before sustaining a gross-neglect substantiation that depends on a context-specific assessment and carries Central Registry consequences.


Dep’t of Child. & Fams., Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166, 121 A.3d 832 (N.J. 2015)