Following a joint trial, the family court found that defendants R.G. and C.R.A.G., husband and wife, abused or neglected two-year-old M.R., who was unrelated to them but under their care, causing him actual harm. The family court in turn determined defendants' actions or inactions against M.R. resulted in the abuse or neglect of their children by "creating [im]minent danger or a substantial risk of being impaired due to their failure to exercise a minimum degree of care."
Defendants' back-to-back appeals raising several issues are consolidated in this one opinion. They contend the family court lacked jurisdiction over them because they were not M.R.'s legal caretakers under N.J.S.A. 9:6-2 and N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21, and M.R. was not named as a subject child in the complaint. Assuming the family court had jurisdiction, they contend there was insufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of abuse or neglect of M.R. Moreover, despite that finding, they contend there was insufficient evidence to support the court's determination that their conduct towards M.R. placed their children at risk of imminent harm.
C.R.A.G. separately argues the record demonstrates she appropriately cared for M.R. She also contends the Division of Child Protection & Permanency (DCPP) failed to present a sufficient cause of action for abuse and neglect of her children. Relatedly, she contends that the family court improperly relied on her treatment of M.R. to support its findings on behalf of her biological children, as it constituted inadmissible other crimes evidence.
The Law Guardian cross-appeals, joining R.G.'s contention that he was not M.R.'s guardian under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(a). The Law Guardian argues the family court engaged in impermissible burden shifting by concluding defendants actually harmed M.R. The Law Guardian also argues there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that R.G. abused or neglected his children.
After reviewing the record and applicable law, the court reverses and remands. As to R.G., the court concludes the family court did not have jurisdiction over him because there was insufficient evidence that he was M.R.'s guardian under Title 9. As to C.R.A.G., the court concludes the family court had jurisdiction over her because there was sufficient evidence that she was M.R.'s guardian under Title 9, but there was insufficient evidence that she caused M.R. actual harm and/or placed her children at risk of imminent harm. The court therefore remands to the family court to remove defendants' names from DCPP's child abuse registry maintained under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.11.