DCPP v. F.C. I/M/O THE GUARDIANSHIP OF F.S. AND W.A.SÂ (FG-09-0121-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-0751-16T3/A-0753-16T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Parents F.C. (mother) and W.S. (father) have two young children (ages 7 and 5) removed from their care in 2013 due to chronic substance abuse, unstable housing, and parenting deficits; both parents have cognitive/physical disabilities and mental-health issues.
- Division provided multiple services over several years: inpatient/outpatient substance-abuse programs, homemaker services, psychological evaluations, visitation, housing and transportation assistance, and referrals for psychiatric care.
- Both parents repeatedly failed to complete or comply with treatment: F.C. had multiple positive marijuana tests, program discharges for noncompliance and anger/hostility, resisted psychotropic medication; W.S. repeatedly tested positive for PCP, was noncompliant or discharged from programs, and was incarcerated for assault.
- Court-appointed experts (Drs. Kanen and Burr) concluded both parents have severe parenting deficits (anger, cognitive/decision-making impairments, substance abuse) that endanger the children; the Law Guardian’s and parents’ expert agreed the parents could not currently protect the children.
- Trial court terminated parental rights after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, the four statutory prongs (N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)) were satisfied; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Division's Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Division proved prong 1 (child’s safety/health/development endangered) | Parents’ chronic substance abuse, untreated mental-health problems, unstable housing and caregiving deficits harmed/continue to harm development | Parents denied direct harm (e.g., marijuana not used in children’s presence) and blamed Division for service gaps | Affirmed: substantial evidence of ongoing harm from parental inattention, instability and substance abuse |
| Whether the Division proved prong 2 (parent unwilling/unable to eliminate harm / provide stable home) | Continued drug use, program noncompliance, domestic violence/incarceration, and failure to follow psychiatric treatment show inability/unwillingness to change | Parents pointed to disabilities, lack of housing and insurance barriers as reasons they could not comply | Affirmed: court credited that parents’ choices/noncompliance—not Division—created/maintained the risk; reunification not reasonably foreseeable |
| Whether the Division made reasonable efforts under prong 3 | Division repeatedly offered tailored services, evaluations, visitation, and kinship options over several years | For first time on appeal, parents claimed ADA violations and lack of accommodations | Affirmed: Division made reasonable, continuing efforts; ADA claim rejected (ADA not a bar to TPR in NJ) |
| Whether termination would do more harm than good (prong 4) | Expert testimony showed insecure/insufficient parent-child bonds and substantial benefit from resource parent; adoption would best serve permanency | Mother argued experts did not evaluate the children directly (no child psychological testing) | Affirmed: experts provided comprehensive evaluations of parents and bonding; termination would not do more harm than good and permanency favored the children |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (standards and appellate review for TPR determinations)
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (harm to child from parental relationship and overlap of TPR prongs)
- In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999) (delay in stable permanent placement as cognizable harm)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2014) (expert-bonding testimony required for prong four and appellate deference to family court factfinding)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (definition of harm that threatens child’s health and development)
- D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232 (2012) (de novo review of legal issues; deference to family court credibility findings)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (family court credibility deference)