DCPP VS. H.D.C. AND R.B.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF T.R.C.(FG-07-194-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-3788-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 28, 2017Background
- Division removed four children from mother H.D.C. in Jan 2014 after substantiated neglect (poor hygiene, school absences, an unsupervised lighter burn to a younger child); parents stipulated to abuse/neglect.
- Children were placed with relatives and resource families; Tara (age 9 at removal) was later placed with paternal aunt and uncle (E.B. and H.Y.).
- Division sought termination of H.D.C.’s parental rights to all children; over time Division changed plans: reunification was approved for two younger children (Andy and Ann) after recommended therapy; Tyler was to be placed with maternal grandmother via Kinship Legal Guardianship; R.B. (Tara’s father) voluntarily surrendered his rights conditioned on adoption by E.B./H.Y. making Tara the only child for whom the mother–child relationship would be severed.
- The only testifying expert, Dr. Peter DeNigris, performed bonding evaluations and concluded a healthy bond did not exist between H.D.C. and Tara (and Tyler), that H.D.C. could parent the younger children but not the older, and that permanency with Tara’s aunt/uncle was preferable. His opinions relied on a single 45–60 minute group observation and other materials he listed; he did not review visitation supervisor reports and gave limited explanation for key conclusions.
- The trial judge relied heavily on Dr. DeNigris, found the Division proved the statutory best-interest factors by clear and convincing evidence, and terminated H.D.C.’s parental rights to Tara. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Division's Argument | H.D.C.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Division proved the four-prong best-interest test by clear and convincing evidence (N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)) | Evidence (bonding report, history of neglect, lack of healthy mother–older child bond) supports each prong; permanency with aunt/uncle best serves Tara. | Expert evidence was incomplete/unsupported; record lacked consideration of Tara’s unique status as the only child to have parental rights severed; Division failed to show termination is best interest. | Reversed and remanded: court must reassess Tara’s best interest given her unique position and incomplete/explained expert evidence. |
| Adequacy and weight of bonding expert testimony (Dr. DeNigris) | Expert was credible; his bonding observations and opinions justified finding risk and lack of fit for parenting Tara. | Expert relied on limited observation, did not review key visitation reports, gave unexplained conclusions about attention-division and risk; unsupported opinion has little value. | Court found expert untested on case-specific issues created by late plan changes; appellate court found the expert’s opinions insufficiently explained and recommended updated/additional expert evidence. |
| Whether the judge erred by not delaying decision pending additional psychiatric report and counseling progress | Permanency concerns counsel prompt decision; records and available expert support termination. | Psychiatric report was pending and counseling was ongoing; judge should have considered those before deciding, given changed plans and potential unique harm to Tara. | Court: judge should have at least delayed decision to consider psychiatrist’s report and further evidence given case-specific changes; remand for reconsideration. |
| Adequacy of law guardian’s advocacy | (Division) court found no reversible error; principal issue was sufficiency of Division’s proof. | H.D.C. argued law guardian failed to advocate Tara’s wishes/interest per statute. | Appellate court considered the claim but found insufficient merit to warrant discussion; reversal based on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008) (State must prove each statutory best-interest prong by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (1992) (courts must assure a complete and balanced evidentiary record; courts may call independent experts)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (2014) (best-interest factors overlap; determinations must be particularized)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (child’s need for permanency is an important best-interest consideration)