In Taylor v. Harford County Dept. of Social Services, 384 Md. 213, 862 A.2d 1026 (2004), the Court of Appeals rejected the proposition that "any random act by a parent could be called child abuse if a child were inadvertently injured." Id. at 231. The Taylor opinion was based upon the following operative facts: "On the afternoon of November 10, 2002, while appellant was attempting to take a nap on a couch in his home, "L" approached him and asked him to help her with a problem she was having with a computer. Appellant told "L" that she would have to wait until after he had finished his nap. While he was still in the midst of his nap, "L" for a second time approached him about fixing the computer problem. Appellant once again told her that she would have to wait, admitting that this time he "raised his voice and yelled at her." Later that afternoon, apparently unwilling to wait further, "L" woke appellant for a third time, once more asking him for his help. Appellant, who had by this time grown irritated at his daughter, got up from the couch and told her that she would have to wait until he finished his nap. While telling "L" this, "to accent his point," appellant kicked a footstool that was in front of the couch. He had intended to kick the footstool into the couch but instead the kick propelled the footstool over the couch and into the air, where it eventually collided with his daughter, who happened to be standing behind the couch. The footstool hit "L" in the face, causing her nose to bleed and her jaw to be sore." (Taylor, 384 Md. at 216-17.) Based on these facts, the Court vacated and remanded the case for re-examination of the finding of indicated child abuse. Judge Cathell, writing for the Court, stated: The threshold question . . . in a case such as this is whether the act causing injury to a child was done with an intent to injure or was done recklessly and injury resulted. In the case sub judice, intent is relevant only insofar as determining whether there was an intent actually to injure the child. Therefore, by solely invoking a foreseeability of harm test, a concept inextricably tied to a general negligence analysis, in deciding whether appellee HCDSS's finding of indicated child physical abuse was appropriate, the ALJ applied an improper standard to the facts before him. . . . if we were to abide by the methodology by which the ALJ interpreted 5-701 . . . and the pertinent COMAR regulations, it appears that any intentional act by a parent or caretaker which has the unintentional consequence of harming that person's child would amount to child abuse, and result in the parent being placed on the central registry of individuals responsible for child abuse, basically creating a strict liability standard for parents or caretakers, who unintentionally injure their children. . . . We doubt that either 5-701 of the Family Law Article or COMAR 07.02.07.12 intends for such a draconian strict liability standard always to attach to the intentional acts of parents or caretakers who unintentionally injure their children. Part of the blame may lie with the unfortunate wording of COMAR 07.02.07.12C(2)(a)(i) in that most acts, whether or not they have unintended consequences, are intentional. For instance, if someone pushes a door open without realizing someone is just on the other side, and then the door slams that other person in the face, the act of opening the door cannot be said to have been either accidental or unintentional, although the injurious consequences of that act may have been just that. Under the ALJ's use of "foreseeability," if an act occurs that results in injury to a child that injury would be foreseeable because the injury occurred. Another example would be those instances where drivers have run over other persons as they operated vehicles in reverse. The foreseeability of the drivers's actions would be very relevant in a negligence tort context even though there was no intent to injure. However, under the ALJ's analysis, if the driver was a parent and the person injured his or her child, the foreseeability standard of negligence would be transmogrified into intent to injure the child and the parent would forever be branded a child abuser. We do not believe that was the intent of the Legislature. We hold that, under the circumstances here present, the intentional act must be shown to have been either reckless in its nature or deliberately intended to harm the child in order for a finding of "indicated child abuse" to be made. . . . In respect to intent, it is material whether there was "intent" to injure "L." There was no direct evidence proffered, other than the act of kicking the footstool, that contradicted the evidence proffered by appellant that he did not intend to injure his daughter. The correct standard therefore was unrelated to intent to injure, but whether appellant's actions were "reckless." . . . (Taylor, 384 Md. at 230-33.)