DCPP VS. A.B. AND P.U.B.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.K.B.Â (FG-09-0221-15, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED), A-4151-15T2/A-4196-15T2

Background

Parents P.U.B. (Porscha) and A.B. (Anwan) appealed the termination of their parental rights to son A.K.B.; the Division sought termination and adoption after two removals and extended placement with a resource parent (Porscha's godmother).
Case history: Division custody initially in 2011, case closed, reopened and custody regained in October 2013 for noncompliance with substance‑abuse and homemaker services; guardianship/termination litigation followed and trial occurred Jan–Mar 2016.
Porscha: documented cognitive limitations, history of marijuana use, inconsistent contact with Division and the child, failure to complete parenting and counseling referrals, and sporadic visitation; psychological evaluations found low borderline cognitive functioning and poor prognosis for competent parenting.
Anwan: paternity confirmed June 2014; virtually no caretaking history and multiple incarcerations (including long stints during the case), limited jail visits, and little or no sustained contact with the child.
Division provided repeated referrals for substance‑abuse assessment/treatment, parenting classes, counseling, visitation, and explored kin placements; resource parent desired adoption and the child had formed a secure attachment to that parent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parental relationship endangered child (prong 1)	Division: parents’ conduct and deficiencies (Porscha’s cognitive limits/substance history; Anwan’s absence/incarceration) endangered A.K.B.’s safety, health, development	Porscha: Division failed to accommodate her cognitive disability; Anwan: he caused no active harm	Court: Clear and convincing evidence satisfied prong 1 — parental relationship endangered the child
Whether parent unable/unwilling to eliminate harm or provide stable home (prong 2)	Division: parents’ ongoing instability, noncompliance, and incarceration prevented timely reunification and endangered permanency	Defendants: contested that termination was not in child's best interest and/or services were inadequate	Court: Prong 2 satisfied — parents could not remove harm before delays would cause further harm
Whether Division made reasonable reunification efforts and considered alternatives (prong 3)	Division: multiple, individualized referrals and assessments; kin explored; resource parent preferred adoption	Defendants: Division failed to tailor services to Porscha’s disability or otherwise accommodate her	Court: Prong 3 satisfied — Division’s efforts were reasonable despite lack of success; alternatives (KLG) were considered and adoption was feasible
Whether termination would do more harm than good (prong 4)	Division: child bonded to resource parent; permanence/adoption outweigh loss from severing parental ties	Defendants: argued harm from severing biological ties	Court: Prong 4 satisfied — any transient harm outweighed by child’s need for permanency and stable, nurturing placement with resource parent

Key Cases Cited

In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (N.J. 1999) (articulates best‑interests balancing and permanence emphasis)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (N.J. 1986) (describes statutory best‑interests criteria)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494 (N.J. 2004) (harm may accumulate; permanency considerations)
In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (N.J. 1999) (parental withdrawal as harm; reasonableness of reunification efforts evaluated individually)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (N.J. 2007) (standard of review for Family Part factual findings)
In re Guardianship of K.L.F., 129 N.J. 32 (N.J. 1992) (emotional/psychological harm supports termination)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (deference to trial court on credibility and factual findings)