DCPP VS. M.C IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF D.C. (FG-15-0027-15, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-5609-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- Child D.C., born January 2005; defendant M.C. is her father. Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) sought termination of M.C.’s parental rights; mother previously surrendered rights to a foster parent but later reasserted them.
- Allegations: M.C. committed domestic violence against the child’s mother, used crack cocaine (including in the child’s presence), threatened violence, and had longstanding substance-abuse and transience problems.
- M.C. failed to engage in ordered services (drug treatment, domestic-violence counseling, parenting classes), missed psychological evaluations, and had not seen the child since January 2013.
- The Division placed the child with relatives (maternal great-aunt, then a paternal aunt) and later with a foster parent J.M.; J.M. intended to adopt but that placement later fell through. The child expressed a strong bond with J.M. and did not want contact with M.C.
- At trial (which M.C. did not attend) the judge found the Division proved all four prongs of the statutory best-interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and terminated M.C.’s parental rights.
- After appeal was filed, placements changed (J.M. no longer pre-adoptive placement; child moved to a new foster family seeking adoption), and the mother reasserted parental rights leading the court to order an expedited remand limited to assessing best interests under the new circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Division proved the four statutory prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence | Division: proved abandonment/neglect history, reasonable services, relative placement efforts, and that termination would not do more harm than good | M.C.: Division failed to provide reasonable services, failed to adequately investigate relative placements, and termination would cause more harm than good | Affirmed: trial findings supported by substantial credible evidence for all prongs at time of trial, but limited remand ordered due to changed circumstances |
| Whether Division provided reasonable services to M.C. under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(3) | Division: made appropriate efforts to offer services and to maintain contact | M.C.: services were insufficient or not reasonably provided | Affirmed: record shows Division offered drug, DV, parenting services and made reasonable placement efforts |
| Whether Division investigated and pursued placement with relatives as required | Division: placed with relatives when possible and explored kin placements | M.C.: Division failed to identify/investigate other relatives who could care for child | Affirmed: Division placed child with relatives and M.C. did not identify additional relatives |
| Whether termination would do more harm than good (best-interests fourth prong) | Division: child bonded to foster parent; separation would cause serious, enduring harm | M.C.: termination would harm child; argued changed circumstances and his improved status | Affirmed as to trial record: judge found termination would not do more harm than good; but remanded for limited, expedited re-evaluation given post-trial changes (new foster placement; mother reasserting rights) |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012) (standard for reviewing factual findings in parental-rights cases)
- In re Guardianship of J.O., 327 N.J. Super. 304 (App. Div.) (2000) (ICWA notice requirements and parent’s obligation to raise tribal status)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008) (consideration of a child’s expressed placement preference in best-interests analysis)
- N.J. Div. of Child Protection & Permanency v. K.T.D., 439 N.J. Super. 363 (App. Div. 2015) (ICWA notice sufficiency where parent provided tribal information)