DCPP VS. C.L., B.W., J.O. AND C.C.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.K.W., M.J.C.AND S.C.O., A-1596-16T1

Background

Mother (C.L.) had long history with child-protection agencies, including ACS in New York; Division (DCP&P) became involved in NJ in December 2014 after reports of mental‑health noncompliance, substance use, domestic violence, housing instability, and an allegation that two of her sons engaged in sexual activity witnessed by her.
Division executed an emergency Dodd removal on December 20, 2014; court placed four children in Division custody and ordered services for mother (psychiatric/psychological evaluations, CADC, parenting classes, supervised visitation).
Mother repeatedly refused or failed to complete ordered services, missed evaluations, tested positive for marijuana, and lived in shelters; she executed a voluntary stipulation/admission to neglect in April 2015 admitting inadequate supervision and other problems.
Division filed a guardianship complaint as to three children (M.K.W., M.J.C., S.C.O.); trial occurred November 30, 2016. Experts agreed mother was currently unable to parent; Division recommended termination followed by adoption.
Trial court found Division proved all four statutory prongs of the N.J.S.A. 30:4C‑15.1(a) best‑interests test by clear and convincing evidence and entered a judgment terminating mother’s parental rights to the three children; appellate court affirmed in part and remanded to correct the judgment to reflect termination of another father’s rights.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Division proved prong (1): child’s safety, health, or development endangered by parental relationship	Division: mother’s untreated bipolar/PTSD, substance use, housing instability, domestic violence, and prior supervisory failures endangered children and risked continuing harm	Mother: no continuing harm shown; children bonded and risk of severing ties outweighs benefit	Held: Prong 1 satisfied — credible evidence of ongoing risk and need for permanency
Whether Division proved prong (2): parent unwilling/unable to eliminate harm or provide safe, stable home	Division: mother repeatedly refused/failed services; experts agreed she was unfit now and in foreseeable future	Mother: Division failed to tailor mental‑health services; five‑month referral gap; treatment choices inadequate	Held: Prong 2 satisfied — mother unwilling/unable to remediate; expert agreement supported judge
Whether Division satisfied prong (3): reasonable efforts to reunify and consideration of alternatives	Division: made multiple referrals (evaluations, CADC, therapy, parenting classes, housing/employment help); mother did not follow through	Mother: Division delayed/refused some referrals and did not provide appropriate cognitive‑behavioral therapy	Held: Prong 3 satisfied — Division’s repeated offers of services were reasonable given circumstances
Whether prong (4) favors termination: termination will not do more harm than good	Division: children need permanency; mother’s unfitness means delay would harm them; experts and caseworker testified termination promotes best interests	Mother: children bonded to her; termination severs ties and risks harm	Held: Prong 4 satisfied — permanency and stability outweigh harm of severing ties; termination appropriate

Key Cases Cited

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (appellate‑review deference to family court findings)
In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440 (standards for appellate scope in guardianship matters)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (standard for reviewing factual findings)
In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (four‑prong best‑interests test for termination)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (definition of continuing deleterious effects under prong one)
In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (focus on past abuse/neglect and need for permanency)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (relationship between prongs and court deference)
A.W. v. Division of Youth & Family Servs., 103 N.J. 591 (foreseeability of parent ceasing harmful conduct under prong two)