DCPP VS. H.I. AND M.D.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.D. (FG-02-0062-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-0396-16T1/A-0397-16T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Child M.J.D. (born 2013) removed in March 2014 after reports of parental substance abuse (mother Helen) and prior domestic violence by father Matt; child has been in Division custody since removal and primarily placed with resource family seeking adoption.
- Helen admitted cocaine, heroin, and marijuana use while caring for the child and repeatedly screened positive; Matt admitted regular marijuana use and has a lengthy criminal history and admissions of domestic violence, including incidents when the child was present.
- Both parents received services (substance-abuse treatment, parenting classes, ADV, psychological/psychiatric evaluations) but did not complete or benefit sufficiently; Helen diagnosed with bipolar II and depression; Matt met criteria for antisocial personality disorder per evaluations.
- The Division explored relative placements (Helen’s sister and mother; Matt’s grandmother) and ruled them out after investigation and evaluation; psychologist Dr. Miller testified some relatives had poor judgment or unsuitable circumstances.
- After a four-day guardianship trial, the Family Part judge found by clear and convincing evidence that all four statutory prongs for termination under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) were satisfied and that termination would not do more harm than good; guardianship granted to the Division to permit adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Division proved the child’s safety, health, or development has been or will continue to be endangered (prong 1) | Division: parents’ substance abuse, domestic violence, and criminal history endanger the child | Parents: challenge factual sufficiency of proofs | Court: Held Division met burden; findings supported by credible evidence and expert testimony |
| Whether parent(s) were unwilling or unable to eliminate harm or provide safe, stable home (prong 2) | Division: parents failed to remedy conditions despite services; risk of continued harm | Parents: asserted they received insufficient or unequal opportunities for reunification | Court: Held parents were unwilling/unable; services offered but not completed; father’s incarcerations limited participation; no constitutional violation found |
| Whether Division made reasonable reunification efforts and considered alternatives (prong 3) | Division: provided services and investigated relatives as alternatives | Parents: claimed relatives (esp. paternal grandmother) were not timely/properly evaluated | Court: Held Division reasonably explored relatives and properly ruled them out based on evaluations and circumstances |
| Whether termination would do more harm than good (prong 4) | Division: continued placement with resource parents and prospective adoption best serves child; removal from resource family would harm child | Parents: termination would harm parent–child relationship | Court: Held termination would not do more harm than good; adoption in child’s best interest supported by expert opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (best-interests framework balancing parental rights and State’s parens patriae duty)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (2014) (standard of review and requirement for clear and convincing evidence in termination cases)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012) (deference to family court factfinding and credibility assessments)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382 (2009) (parental interests may yield to State’s duty to protect children)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.J.D., 428 N.J. Super. 451 (App. Div. 2012) (interrelated nature of the four statutory prongs)
- In re Guardianship of G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (appellate standard for overturning family court findings)
- D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232 (2012) (distinguishing appellate review of law versus fact)
- State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (2009) (waiver doctrine for unpreserved claims raised on appeal)