DCPP VS. M.M.W. AND A.S., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF B.M.S. (FG-05-0017-19, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED)
A-4552-19/A-4553-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 14, 2021Background
- Child B.M.S. (born 2015) was removed Feb 10, 2018 after a domestic-violence–tinged incident in which both parents were intoxicated; the child has lived with a maternal aunt (resource parent) since removal and the aunt seeks adoption.
- The Division filed for guardianship/termination of parental rights (TPR) March 2019 after ~2 years of involvement during which parents struggled with long‑standing substance abuse, unstable housing and employment, and intermittent compliance with services.
- The Division provided reunification services: evaluations, substance‑abuse treatment, psychiatric care, random urine screens, visitation and caseworker support; parents attended some programs but repeatedly relapsed or missed requirements.
- For the Division, clinical psychologist Dr. Alan J. Lee performed bonding and parenting-capacity evaluations and testified that (1) the child had a stronger, secure attachment to the resource parents, (2) neither parent was capable of independent caregiving in the foreseeable future, and (3) termination would not risk severe, enduring harm to the child.
- The trial court found the Division proved all four statutory best‑interest prongs by clear and convincing evidence and entered a judgment of guardianship terminating both parents’ rights; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether parents’ relationship endangers child’s safety, health, development | Division: long‑standing substance abuse, instability, and neglect endanger child | Parents: negative screens and positive visits show no enduring danger | Held: Court found clear‑and‑convincing evidence of endangerment (prong 1) |
| 2. Whether parents are unwilling/unable to eliminate harm or provide stable home | Division: parents repeatedly relapsed, lacked stable housing/employment, poor prognosis for sustained change | Parents: claim willingness/ability to parent and close bond with child | Held: Court concluded parents unable to eliminate harm; delay would add harm (prong 2) |
| 3. Whether Division made reasonable reunification efforts and alternatives considered | Division: provided comprehensive services and visitation; KLG considered but resource parent opposed; adoption feasible | Parents: argue services/assessments did not support TPR | Held: Court found Division made reasonable efforts and no viable alternative to TPR (prong 3) |
| 4. Whether TPR will do more harm than good | Division: expert testimony that permanency with resource parents outweighs severing contact; resource parents can mitigate harm | Parents: severing bond with biological parents would harm child | Held: Court accepted expert that termination would not do more harm than good given child’s secure bond with resource parents and need for permanency (prong 4) |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.S., 202 N.J. 145 (best‑interests prongs are overlapping, comprehensive standard)
- In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (parental withdrawal of care over time can constitute endangerment)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (expert evaluation requirement and permanency considerations)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (when foster parents provide nurturing care, TPR likely will not do more harm than good)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (appellate deference to family court factfinding in TPR cases)
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (delay in permanency can add to child’s harm)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (adoption availability limits Kinship Legal Guardianship defense to TPR)