DCPP VS. C.C. AND A.B.IN THE MATTER OF J.C., TI.B., AND TY.B. (FN-09-265-14 AND FG-09-256-15, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-4799-14T1/A-4769-15T1/A-5090-15T1
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Jun 29, 2017Background
- Three children (born 2010, 2012, 2013) were removed from mother C.C.'s care in Oct. 2013 and have since lived with maternal grandmother M.C., who seeks to adopt.
- At a Title 9 fact-finding hearing the Division presented evidence of three occasions when C.C. left the children home alone and other instances where children were left with unwilling or unnotified caretakers; C.C. did not testify at that hearing.
- After removal, parents C.C. and A.B. were largely noncompliant with services, missed or had inconsistent visitation, and failed to complete psychological/substance evaluations ordered by the court.
- The Family Part found C.C. neglected the children and later (June 29, 2016) terminated both parents’ parental rights; the Law Guardian and the Division supported the findings.
- Parents challenged (1) due process for lack of specific notice of the “home alone” incidents and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence on neglect and for termination under the best-interests statutory test; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCPP’s failure to specify the three “home alone” incidents in the verified complaint violated C.C.’s due process right to notice | Division relied on pretrial notice and pleadings indicating it sought findings that C.C. repeatedly failed to arrange appropriate supervision; testimony at trial was within scope | C.C. argued she lacked fair notice and was prejudiced by introduction of unpled incidents | No due process violation: pretrial notice, defense cross-examination, and lack of timely objection meant no undue prejudice; amendment/conforming evidence principles apply |
| Whether evidence supported a finding of neglect for leaving young children home alone/unattended | Testimony from grandmother and brother established multiple occasions of children left alone or unsafely supervised | C.C. argued incidents were brief/isolated and insufficient to establish neglect | Affirmed: court credited witnesses; repeated incidents and danger to very young children supported neglect finding |
| Whether Division made reasonable efforts and met the statutory best-interests factors to terminate parental rights | Division provided services (parenting class, homemaker services, transport, appointments) but parents were noncompliant; children were stable with grandmother | Parents argued Division failed to increase/revise services (e.g., unsupervised visits), and pointed to poverty/housing/drug use as insufficient grounds | Affirmed: substantial record that parents were unwilling/unable to remediate harms, Division’s efforts were reasonable, and permanency with grandmother served children’s interests |
| Whether termination would do more harm than good (prong 4) absent comparative expert evaluations | Division: comparative expert was unnecessary because parents obstructed evaluations; caseworker testimony showed children well-adjusted with grandmother | Parents: absence of comparative expert undermines finding that severance won’t do more harm | Affirmed: court credited caseworker and factual record; parental noncooperation precluded comparative experts; termination would not do more harm than good |
Key Cases Cited
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (due process/notice; pleadings must reasonably apprize defendant and trial court must remedy surprise).
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.M., 413 N.J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 2010) (reversal where surprise expert testimony materially affected outcome and defendant lacked opportunity to respond).
- Kernan v. One Wash. Park Urban Renewal Assocs., 154 N.J. 437 (1998) (pleading/amendment power should be liberally exercised absent undue prejudice).
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (sets out constitutional protection of parental rights and framework for termination analysis).
- In re Guardianship of DMH, 161 N.J. 365 (1999) (parental dereliction, instability, and prolonged absence as relevant harms for termination).
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (discusses importance of expert comparative bonding evaluations, while recognizing limits when parents obstruct evaluations).