DCPP VS. J.O. AND C.O.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF C.O. AND K.O.(FG-02-0031-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-0233-15T3/A-0291-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Parents J.O. (mother) and C.O. (father) had two daughters born 2007 and 2008; Division became involved in 2012 for hygiene, unsanitary conditions, and domestic violence.
- Psychological assessments found the mother a high risk for neglect and the father at risk for aggression and anger-management problems; mother permitted a Megan’s Law registrant to live with/near the children despite a Safety Protection Plan.
- In July 2013 the Division removed the children; they have since lived with relatives, most recently with the paternal grandmother.
- The Division provided services (psychological evaluations, counseling, anger management, parenting classes, ADV), which parents inconsistently attended and did not complete many programs.
- A five-day guardianship trial (Mar–Apr 2015) resulted in Judge Conte terminating parental rights after finding the Division proved the four statutory prongs by clear and convincing evidence and that adoption by the paternal uncle was appropriate; the uncle later withdrew but the grandmother committed to adopt.
- On remand the court limited review to the fourth prong; bonding evaluations by three experts found a strong, secure bond with the grandmother, and Judge DeLorenzo affirmed the guardianship (Oct 2016). Appeals by both parents were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate parental rights under the four-prong K.H.O. test | Division: presented clear and convincing evidence on all four statutory prongs supporting guardianship/adoption | Parents: Division failed to meet clear-and-convincing standard; factual findings flawed | Court: Affirmed — findings supported by substantial, credible evidence; four prongs satisfied |
| Changed circumstances after trial (permanency plan changed from uncle to grandmother) | Division: permanency change does not undermine earlier findings; experts evaluated grandmother bond | Parents: changed circumstances (uncle withdrew) warrant vacatur/remand for reconsideration | Court: Remand limited to fourth prong; expert bonding evaluations supported existing judgment; no vacatur warranted |
| Mother's completion of Alternatives to Domestic Violence (ADV) program | Division: overall risk persisted (exposure to sex offender, inconsistent engagement) despite ADV completion | Mother: completion of ADV constitutes changed circumstances showing fitness and supports relief | Court: Mother’s ADV completion insufficient; other risks remained and no showing of changed circumstances justifying relief |
| Applicability of ADA Directive (HHS/DOJ) to Division services | Division: provided reasonable services; parents failed to raise disability specifics at trial | Mother: court failed to consider Directive and ADA accommodations in evaluating services provided | Court: Argument raised only on reconsideration and unsupported (no disability identified); no abuse of discretion in rejecting ADA-based relief |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (review scope and standard for TPR appeals)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (deference to family court factfinding)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (limits on disturbing family court 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. L.J.D., 428 N.J. Super. 451 (interrelated nature of the four prongs)
- D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232 (no special deference to legal conclusions)
- Housing Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274 (standard for reviewing denial of reconsideration)
- Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455 (reconsideration not for information available at trial)