DCPP VS. E.M. AND C.G.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF CA.G., TI.G., ANDTA.G. (FG-12-0082-16, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-0239-16T4/A-0242-16T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Parents E.M. (Elena) and C.G. (Carl) are the parents of three children born 2006–2008; children were removed June 29, 2013 after both parents were incarcerated.
- Carl was charged and later convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; Elena was charged with evidence tampering; both had histories of substance abuse and mental-health issues.
- The Division sought termination of parental rights; after a three-day trial the family judge terminated both parents’ rights.
- Judge found Elena’s alcoholism, mental-health problems, violent outbursts, and failure to engage in recommended inpatient treatment endangered the children.
- Judge found Carl’s drug offenses, criminal conduct, relapse into substance use while reunification was progressing, probation violations, and diagnoses (schizophrenia, PTSD) showed he was unable to provide stable parenting.
- Trial court found the Division met all four statutory prongs for termination under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a); Appellate Division affirmed on review as supported by substantial credible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental relationship endangered the children | Division: parents’ substance abuse, violence, mental illness, and criminality endangered the children | Elena/Carl: evidence was insufficient; findings unsupported | Held: Affirmed — substantial credible evidence supported danger finding |
| Whether parents were unwilling or unable to remedy harm or provide a safe, stable home | Division: parents failed to complete or benefit from treatment and repeatedly relapsed | Parents: argued they could change / progress was being made | Held: Affirmed — court found chronic relapse, noncompliance, and poor prognosis for timely improvement |
| Whether the Division made reasonable reunification efforts and considered alternatives | Division: offered services and considered alternatives; reunification efforts occurred | Parents: did not contest adequacy of efforts on appeal | Held: Affirmed — third prong satisfied (court need not recite further) |
| Whether the court improperly relied on expert testimony that was only a "net opinion" (Carl's claim) | Division: expert evaluations supported findings about parental deficits and parent–child relationships | Carl: Dr. Katz gave only net opinions, so court erred in relying on them | Held: Rejected — appellate deference to trial judge’s credibility findings; overall record provided substantial evidence independent of any asserted net-opinion flaw |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizing parental rights as constitutionally protected)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights described as fundamental)
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (state interest in protecting children vs parental rights)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (statutory framework for termination of parental rights)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (parental rights not absolute; grounds for termination)
- In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (state obligation to protect children)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382 (when parental interest yields to child protection)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (deference to trial court findings supported by substantial credible evidence)