NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY
VS. K.F. AND R.G. AND D.M.I/M/O A.M. AND N.G.
A-0558-14T1
We reverse application of the burden-shifting paradigm
found in In re D.T., 229 N.J. Super. 509 (App. Div. 1988), in an
abuse and neglect case involving a twenty-five-day-old infant.
The parents brought the child to the emergency room with a
bruised lip and small bump on the side of the head which they
claimed resulted from the baby falling off a bed. Throughout
the investigation, neither parent wavered from the narrative
that the mother took the infant into the bedroom and left him
there sleeping. While in the living room, they heard the baby
suddenly start to cry, the mother returned to the bedroom and
found him on the floor. They immediately took the child for
treatment. Since an infant that age cannot roll, that night
medical personnel referred the matter to the Division of Child
Protection and Permanency.
During the fact-finding hearing, the trial judge shifted the burden of persuasion to the father because the mother's explanation that she placed the child near the edge of the bed was unconvincing, and the father was in the home when the
incident occurred. We conclude that merely finding one parent's
explanation insufficient should not result in shifting the
burden to the other.
