DCPP VS. L.H. AND G.H.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF LAS.H. (FG-09-105-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED), A-4749-15T1/A-4750-15T1

Background

Child Lucy born April 2014; both mother Linda (L.H.) and newborn tested positive for marijuana; Lucy removed and placed with paternal kin, foster mother T.B.
Linda has a long history of substance abuse and multiple prior child removals; periods of remission followed by relapse and intermittent disengagement from services and visitation.
Father Gary (G.H.) was identified by paternity testing in May 2016; he refused to cooperate with Division evaluations and did not present a reunification plan or complete a bonding evaluation.
The Division filed to terminate parental rights in July 2015; a seven-day guardianship trial was held in May 2016 before Judge DeCastro.
Trial evidence included expert testimony (Dr. Figurelli for the Division; Dr. Katz for Linda), caseworker testimony, and testimony from the foster mother; the court found the Division proved all four statutory best-interest prongs by clear and convincing evidence.
Appellate division affirmed termination, deferring to trial factual findings supported by substantial credible evidence and treating defendants’ arguments as insufficient to overturn the judgment.

Issues

Issue	Division's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
1. Did the parental relationship endanger Lucy’s safety, health, or development?	Linda’s chronic substance abuse, history of relapse, and withdrawal from children endanger Lucy; Gary failed to protect child.	Defendants: newborn test alone did not show harm; Lucy healthy with no withdrawal or developmental problems.	Court: Found accumulated history and risk of relapse (Linda) and lack of protective action (Gary) established present and likely future endangerment.
2. Can parents eliminate the harm or provide a safe, stable home in foreseeable time?	Division: Neither parent can achieve stable, safe placement soon—Linda’s relapse risk and inconsistent engagement; Gary offered no plan or participation.	Defendants: Linda points to treatment and negative screens; Gary cites past involvement and visitation.	Court: Evidence showed inability/unwillingness to mitigate risk within reasonable time; permanency concerns favored termination.
3. Did the Division make reasonable reunification efforts and consider alternatives?	Division: Provided evaluations, treatment referrals, supervised visitation, therapeutic services, and offered parenting mentor; efforts were reasonable though unsuccessful.	Defendants: Division allegedly failed to provide certain services or contributed to missed visits.	Court: Credited Division’s individualized efforts as reasonable; alternatives like kinship legal guardianship were not viable given foster mother preferred adoption.
4. Would termination do more harm than good? (balance of harms)	Division: Child bonded to foster mother; long-term harm from failed reunification outweighs harm from severing parental rights.	Defendants: Severing Lucy’s relationship with biological parents would harm her; gradual transition to parent could avoid harm.	Court: Bond with foster mother and permanency needs outweighed harm from termination; termination would not do more harm than good.

Key Cases Cited

161 N.J. 337 (In re Guardianship of K.H.O.) (best-interests balancing; four-prong standard)
103 N.J. 591 (N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W.) (termination standards)
189 N.J. 261 (N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M.) (standard of review; substantial credible evidence)
161 N.J. 365 (In re Guardianship of D.M.H.) (parental withdrawal as harm)
180 N.J. 494 (N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.P.) (accumulation of harm; alternatives)
129 N.J. 32 (In re Guardianship of K.L.F.) (emotional/psychological harm may warrant termination)
196 N.J. 88 (N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P.) (permanency and bonding with foster parents)
211 N.J. 420 (N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M.) (fourth-prong fail-safe to prevent premature termination)