DCPP VS. J.W. AND J.J.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF X.J.W. (FG-07-145-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-4841-15T3,A-4991-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- J.W. (mother) and J.J. (father) are biological parents of X.J.W., born November 2004.
- Division filed a guardianship complaint seeking termination of parental rights and placement with the Division.
- Judge Linda Lordi Cavanaugh conducted a three-day trial with testimony from five witnesses and expert reports.
- Judge Cavanaugh terminated parental rights of both parents and awarded guardianship to the Division.
- Court-ordered services were offered; J.W. left the state and severed contact with X.J.W.; J.J. had unstable housing, employment, and an admitted substance abuse problem.
- Appellants argued lack of clear and convincing evidence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the appellate court affirmed termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence under four factors. | J.W. and J.J. contend evidence supported termination. | Appellants claim insufficient proof to meet the four prongs. | Yes; termination supported by clear and convincing evidence for both parents. |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance | Division/guardian argues no reversible error in counsel's performance. | J.J. alleges counsel failed to present certain cross-examining evidence and closing arguments. | No reversible error; outcome would be unchanged even if challenged actions occurred. |
| Whether the court should consider other potential services or alternatives before termination | Division offered services and alternatives were considered. | Counsel argues more services or interventions could have altered outcome. | No; court found no viable alternatives to termination and adoption was in X.J.W.'s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (Supreme Court (1982)) (parens patriae and due process considerations in termination of parental rights)
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (N.J. 1999) (best interests standard governs termination of parental rights)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (N.J. 1986) (four-factor best interests framework for termination proceedings)
- N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (N.J. 2012) (reaffirmation of the standard and deference to trial court findings)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (test for credibility and weights in domestic matters; standard of review)
- B.R. v. N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs., 192 N.J. 301 (N.J. 2007) (ineffective-assistance framework in family-litigation context)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.L., 388 N.J. Super. 81 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006) (overlaps between first and second prongs in termination analysis)