DCPP VS. L.A.G.-C. AND D.F.M.M., IN THE MATTER OF GUARDIANSHIP OF E.M.L.M.G. (FG-11-0029-19, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3722-19

Background

Erica (born Nov. 2017) was removed from mother L.A.G.-C.’s care three days after birth by an emergency Dodd removal; Division cited lack of supplies and father D.F.M.M.’s established history of physical abuse of the mother’s other children.
Mother had two older children previously removed in 2016 after injuries to her son and inconsistent explanations; Division found those children at risk due to the paramour’s conduct.
Division provided and court-ordered services (psychological evaluations, parenting classes, supervised visitation, substance-abuse referrals); mother’s engagement was sporadic and she missed many visits and appointments.
Dr. Antonio Burr (psychologist) evaluated mother twice, found limited insight, poor stress/anger management, ongoing marijuana use, inconsistent visitation, and concluded mother lacked capacity for safe, stable reunification; foster parents were bonded and willing to adopt.
Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) Erica’s safety, health, or development would be endangered by return, (2) mother was unable/unwilling to remediate the harm, (3) Division made reasonable efforts to provide services, and (4) termination would not do more harm than good; termination of parental rights was entered and affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of hearsay at guardianship trial	Division relied on investigation reports, caseworker testimony, and psychological reports as admissible evidence to meet the clear-and-convincing standard.	Lora argued the court improperly admitted hearsay evidence to prove grounds for termination.	Appellate court rejected the claim; evidence admitted and sufficient; no reversible error.
Endangerment (N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1))	Division: mother’s instability, lack of preparation at birth, recurring domestic-violence exposure, substance use, and inability to provide necessities endangered the child.	Mother: contested factual inferences; emphasized some service completion and improvements (housing, part-time work).	Court: clear and convincing evidence of present and continuing endangerment.
Parental unfitness / inability to remediate (prong (2))	Division: mother failed to consistently engage in or complete services, missed visits, used marijuana, and lacked insight and planning capacity.	Mother: asserted engagement in some services and recent housing/employment improvements; disputed severity of deficits.	Court: mother unable or unwilling to eliminate harms; denial of reunification appropriate.
Reasonable efforts; best interests / harm vs. good (prongs (3) & (4))	Division: made reasonable, time-sensitive efforts; no viable relative placement; foster parents bonded and able to meet child’s needs; termination serves permanency.	Mother: argued alternatives and progress could support reunification; termination would harm mother–child bond.	Court: Division made reasonable efforts; termination would not do more harm than good given bonding with resource parents and child’s need for permanency.

Key Cases Cited

In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (articulates child’s need for permanency as central in guardianship cases)
Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (expert testimony often necessary in termination proceedings)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to Family Part’s factual findings and credibility determinations)
In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440 (2002) (standard of appellate review in termination cases)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008) (upholding trial-court findings supported by substantial credible evidence)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. R.L.M., 236 N.J. 123 (2018) (recognizing constitutional preference to keep children with natural parents while evaluating statutory prongs)