DCPP VS. K.S. AND T.R.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Z.B. AND K.A.Z.B.(FG-11-03-16, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0016-16T1

Background

Mother (K.S.) has longstanding bipolar disorder and PTSD stemming from childhood trauma; history of hospitalizations, suicidality, and inconsistent medication adherence.
Division became involved in 2010; children (born 2008 and 2014) were placed with resource parents after repeated instability, relapses, and failed family placements.
Division provided extensive services (therapy, medication monitoring, parenting classes, Mommy & Me program) over years; mother intermittently engaged but repeatedly relapsed, missed appointments, changed residences, and tested positive for cocaine.
Two competing bonding experts: Dr. Becker-Mattes (Division) concluded mother cannot safely parent due to inconsistent treatment and that children are strongly bonded to resource parents; Dr. Brown (mother) found mother bonded and capable if treatment-compliant.
Trial court found Division proved all four statutory prongs for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence and awarded guardianship to the Division to permit adoption by resource parents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prong 1 (child safety, health, development endangered) satisfied	Mother's history of relapses, inconsistent medication, instability endangers children emotionally and developmentally	No physical abuse; mother made recent improvements, so statutory harm not shown	Prong 1 satisfied: court relied on pattern of instability and treatment noncompliance posing high risk of harm
Whether prong 2 (parent unable/unwilling to eliminate harm; delay worsens harm) satisfied	Repeated relapses and inability to sustain treatment show mother cannot eliminate harm in time to meet children's needs	Recent six months of stability show capacity to reunify; expert testimony supports mother’s prognosis if compliant	Prong 2 satisfied: six months insufficient given long history of sporadic compliance and relapses
Whether Division made reasonable reunification efforts (prong 3)	Division provided coordinated, appropriate services and investigated relatives; efforts were reasonable	Division’s efforts were inadequate or lip-service; family placements not fully re-explored	Prong 3 satisfied: court found services appropriate and relatives adequately assessed
Whether termination would do more harm than good (prong 4 / "fail-safe")	Children are bonded to resource parents; permanency and stability outweigh loss of contact with mother	Severing maternal bond would cause irreparable psychological harm, especially to older child	Prong 4 satisfied: court credited Division expert that children’s attachment to resource parents and need for permanency outweigh harm of severing parental rights

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional standard for termination; clear-and-convincing burden)
In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (statutory four-prong best interests framework)
In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (focus on whether parent can cease causing harm and achieve permanency)
In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (need not wait for actual impairment; parental withdrawal over time can constitute harm)
In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
W.P. & M.P., 308 N.J. Super. 376 (standard requiring clear-and-convincing proof of risk of serious and lasting harm)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.S., 202 N.J. 145 (deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (best interests test before termination)