DCPP v. S.J., P.J., AND S.H., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.K., J.K., L.K., AND S.K. (FG-04-0171-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-0748-20
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jan 12, 2022Background:
- Mother (S.J.) of seven; four children (born 2010, 2016, 2019 twins) were removed and became subject of guardianship petition filed March 2020 after repeated prior Division involvement and allegations including neglect and delusional beliefs about “cloning” and abuse.
- Multiple psychological and parental-capacity evaluations diagnosed delusional disorder and intellectual disability (IQ testing as low as 60); providers concluded mother lacked insight and posed risk to safe parenting; services (parenting classes, therapy, med management) were offered but largely unsuccessful or refused.
- Division placed children in resource homes; bonding evaluations favored resource parents; resource parents were committed to adoption and children were described as doing well in placement.
- Defendant’s trial counsel sought psychiatric experts throughout pretrial conferences; an expert (Dr. Puig) examined defendant but later declined to prepare a report or testify shortly before trial.
- Trial court denied defendant’s motion to adjourn to retain a new expert, held a two-week October 2020 trial, found Division proved the four statutory prongs by clear and convincing evidence, and entered a guardianship judgment terminating parental rights; appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of adjournment to obtain a new expert was an abuse of discretion | Denial proper given multiple pretrial opportunities, need for child permanency, and expert previously examined defendant but then declined to testify | Denial prejudiced defense because she was deprived of a psychiatric expert to rebut Division's evidence | Denial affirmed—no abuse of discretion; delay would harm children's interest in permanency and defendant offered no guarantee a new expert would be secured or helpful |
| Whether Division met its burden under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1 (four prongs) | Division proved prongs by clear and convincing evidence: danger to child, parent unwilling/unable to eliminate harm, reasonable efforts/services provided, termination not worse than harm of delay | Argues trial court erred in factual findings and in applying statute | Affirmed—trial court's findings supported by substantial credible evidence (delusions, limited cognition, bond with resource parents) |
| Whether defendant received effective assistance of counsel | N/A (Division) — counsel acted diligently in seeking experts and advocating | Counsel ineffective for failing to secure expert and prepare defense | Rejected—court found counsel provided excellent, thorough advocacy; no deficient performance or prejudice shown (Strickland standard) |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings were supported and entitled to deference on appeal | Findings supported by record and expert testimony; family court has special competence | Findings were erroneous and not supported by evidence | Affirmed—appellate review limited; factual findings binding when supported by substantial, credible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (appellate review is limited in parental-termination cases)
- In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440 (2002) (family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise in custody matters)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (2010) (deference to Family Part factfinding)
- Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269 (2016) (standard for binding appellate review of factual findings)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate standard for reviewing factual findings)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. R.L.M., 236 N.J. 123 (2018) (four termination prongs overlap and must be balanced; promptness important for children)
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (four-prong statutory test explained)
- In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (1992) (children's overriding interest in stability and permanency)
- State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522 (2011) (standard for denying adjournments; abuse of discretion review)
- Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (2002) (denial of continuance reversible only if without rational explanation or based on impermissible grounds)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)